IGF2024

Summary

This discussion focused on sustainability, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices, and their integration with digital transformation in organizations. The panel, consisting of experts Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir, Engineer Khaled, and Abdulrahman Al-Majed, explored various aspects of these concepts and their implementation.

The conversation began by defining sustainability and ESG, emphasizing their importance in meeting current needs without compromising future generations’ abilities. The panelists highlighted the interconnectedness of environmental, social, economic, and governance dimensions in sustainability practices. They discussed the role of leadership in promoting sustainability and the impact of legislation and systems on ESG practices.

Risk management in the context of ESG was addressed, with the experts explaining various tools and methods for evaluating and managing ESG-related risks. These included risk mapping, scenario analysis, and specialized assessments like environmental impact analysis and life cycle assessment.

The discussion then shifted to the role of technology in advancing sustainability efforts. The panelists mentioned artificial intelligence, machine learning, blockchain, and big data as key technologies that can support sustainable practices and decision-making processes.

Social responsibility programs aligned with ESG goals were explored, with examples including partnerships with non-profit organizations, educational initiatives, and support for small and medium-sized enterprises. The experts noted that many sectors in Saudi Arabia were already advanced in social responsibility efforts.

The panel concluded by addressing the challenges of integrating ESG practices with digital transformation strategies. Key obstacles identified included resistance to change, the need for mature data, and the importance of proper measurement and governance frameworks. The experts emphasized the need for leadership buy-in and raised awareness to overcome these challenges and move towards a more sustainable future.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The concepts of sustainability and ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) standards

– The relationship between governance, sustainability, and digital transformation

– Risk management in the context of ESG practices

– Technological advancements and social responsibility programs related to ESG

– Challenges in implementing ESG practices and digital transformation strategies

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to explore how sustainability, governance, and digital transformation intersect and contribute to achieving sustainable development goals. The panelists aimed to provide insights on implementing ESG practices, managing associated risks, and leveraging technology to create a more sustainable future for organizations.

Overall tone:

The tone of the discussion was professional, informative, and collaborative. The panelists spoke with expertise on their respective topics and built upon each other’s points. There was a sense of optimism about the potential for positive change, balanced with acknowledgment of the challenges involved. The tone remained consistent throughout, maintaining a focus on sharing knowledge and practical insights.

Speakers

– Huda lahaideb: Moderator/host of the discussion

– Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir: Director of Governance at a leading company, coach and consultant in Board of Directors

– Mohandad Khaled: Member of the board of directors, 20 years of experience in GRT

– Abdulrahman Al-Majed: Member of the board of directors of the Association of the Board of Artificial Intelligence, 20 years of experience in internal and global competition

Additional speakers:

– Eid: Member of the board of directors, 20 years of experience in GRT (mentioned but did not speak in the transcript)

Sustainability, ESG, and Digital Transformation: A Comprehensive Discussion

This summary provides an overview of a panel discussion on sustainability, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices, and their integration with digital transformation in organisations. The panel, moderated by Huda lahaideb, featured experts Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir, Mohandad Khaled, and Abdulrahman Al-Majed, who collectively brought extensive experience in governance and artificial intelligence to the conversation.

1. Defining Sustainability and ESG

The discussion began with a foundational exploration of sustainability and ESG concepts. Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir emphasised that sustainability is about meeting current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Mohandad Khaled expanded on this by explaining that ESG practices are measurable standards for evaluating organisational performance. This framing helped to distinguish between the broader concept of sustainability and the more specific, quantifiable aspects of ESG.

2. Governance and Leadership in Sustainability

The conversation highlighted the crucial role of governance and leadership in implementing ESG and sustainability practices. Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir emphasised, “Today, one of the secrets of governance and stability, in order to be an integral part of the organisation and the system, is the strategic stability. The language of the leader that prevails over all existing administrations.” This insight underscored the importance of clear strategic direction from leadership in driving ESG initiatives.

Mohandad Khaled added to this point by discussing how legislations and systems affect the governance of environmental and social practices. He noted the importance of aligning organisational strategies with broader national initiatives, such as Saudi Vision 2030, in developing effective ESG practices.

3. Technology and Sustainability

The role of technology in advancing sustainability efforts was a significant point of discussion. Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir mentioned artificial intelligence, blockchain, and big data as key technologies that can enhance sustainability efforts. Abdulrahman Al-Majed supported this view, discussing how specialised tools can support risk management and decision-making processes related to ESG.

However, the panelists also highlighted challenges in implementing these technologies. Abdulrahman Al-Majed emphasised the need for a supportive organisational culture, stating, “Today, we must have a basic culture that supports this direction so that there is adoption of these technologies and work on it.” This comment broadened the discussion to include cultural aspects of ESG implementation, beyond just policies and technologies.

4. Social Responsibility and ESG

The discussion touched on social responsibility programmes aligned with ESG goals. Mohandad Khaled provided specific examples of how organisations can improve community life and align with ESG objectives. These included partnerships with non-profit organisations, educational initiatives, and support for small and medium-sized enterprises. He also mentioned programmes focused on employing people with disabilities and initiatives to reduce carbon emissions.

Notably, both Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir and Mohandad Khaled observed that many social responsibility programmes were in place in Saudi Arabia even before the term ESG became popular, indicating a strong foundation for further ESG development in the region.

5. Challenges in Implementing ESG Practices

The panel addressed several challenges in integrating ESG practices with digital transformation strategies:

– Resistance to change, particularly from leadership, was identified as a significant obstacle by all speakers.

– Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir emphasised the need for mature data and proper measurement frameworks.

– Mohandad Khaled highlighted the importance of clear governance structures and policies.

– Abdulrahman Al-Majed stressed the need for a supportive organisational culture and raised awareness.

The experts agreed that overcoming these challenges requires leadership buy-in and a concerted effort to educate and engage all levels of the organisation.

6. Global Context and Future Directions

Abdulrahman Al-Majed brought attention to the recent COP16 conference, highlighting its significance in shaping global ESG practices. This reference underscored the importance of considering international developments and agreements in organisational ESG strategies.

Conclusion

The discussion provided a comprehensive exploration of sustainability, ESG practices, and their integration with digital transformation. The panelists offered valuable insights into the practical implementation of ESG initiatives, emphasising the critical roles of leadership, technology, and organisational culture. They also highlighted the need for alignment with broader national and international sustainability goals.

As organisations continue to navigate the complex landscape of sustainability and ESG in the digital age, the insights provided by this panel offer valuable guidance. The discussion points to several areas for future focus, including developing effective measurement frameworks for ESG impact, strategies for overcoming resistance to change, and methods for better integrating ESG considerations into overall business strategies.

The conversation ultimately underscored that while challenges remain, there is significant potential for organisations to drive positive change through well-implemented ESG practices, supported by strong leadership and appropriate technological tools.

Huda lahaideb: The main movement that guarantees the continuity of work and transparency and transforms… Today, the continuity of work, governance and presence, but how do these concepts contribute to strengthening the goals of sustainable development, strengthening digital transformation and achieving sustainability in all its meanings? Ladies and gentlemen, before we dive into the topics of this session, I would like to introduce our distinguished guests, who are a team of experts and technical experts who will lead this discussion. With us is Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir, Director of Governance at one of the leading companies, a coach and consultant in the Board of Directors. Our second guest, Eid, a member of the board of directors, who has been in the field of GRT for 20 years. Our third guest, Mr. Abdulrrahman Al-Majid, a member of the board of directors of the Association of the Board of Artificial Intelligence, who has been in the field of internal and global competition for 20 years. Welcome. Ladies and gentlemen, let’s start with our first topic, which we will discuss, God willing, the concepts of sustainability, the digital transformation standards, environmental standards, and governance, or what is called AHG. Let’s start with Dr. Zahra.

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir: Thank you, Huda.

Huda lahaideb: Dr. Zahra, from your experience, what is the concept of sustainability?

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir: Of course, I am talking about the concept of sustainability in its simplest definition from the United Nations. How do we meet the current needs today without touching the needs or potential of the coming generations to meet their needs? How do we study these dimensions? Environmental dimensions, economic dimensions, social dimensions, and also governance dimensions in general. When we talk about the environmental dimension, we all know the natural resources, water and air. How is the social dimension that has quality of life and social justice? As for the economic dimension, it is not the economic dimension in general. Today, ESG has become a trend. Why did we start with ESG? Many people do not know or have never talked about ESG. Why did we start with the environment? Because the environment is the nature we live in, and then the society we work in, and then we need to clean it. This is briefly about sustainability, but today there are many definitions of sustainability available according to the strategy of the system or the direction of the system in general. We need it. We just need these four dimensions that I talked about.

Huda lahaideb: Thank you. Maybe the concept of sustainability and ESG is new and has become a trend in many organizations today. If you tell us, Engineer Khaled, what is the difference today between sustainability, environmental standards, social and governance?

Mohandad Khaled: In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. First of all, I would like to thank Ms. Hoda for this introduction. Thank you, Mr. Marraqati, for inviting me to this area and to meet you. It is an important question, the concept of sustainability and the concept of ESG. Thank you. It refers to meeting the current needs without touching the ability of the coming generations to meet their needs. Sustainability aims to create long-term balance in terms of the environment, health, and social justice. Sustainability can be measured through various pillars and indicators in terms of the goals of sustainability and the development of the United Nations. As for environmental, social, governance and ESG practices, they are a set of measurable standards that investors and business owners use to evaluate the performance of the organization through three main areas, which are the environment, society, and the environment. It aims to create an organized framework to evaluate risks and opportunities, such as the environmental impacts, for example, the human rights violations, their moral leadership, and then integrate them into the strategies of the organization. ESG can be measured through standards and indicators provided by various agencies based on the ESG standards and practices. Finally, sustainability and ESG share a common goal in terms of enhancing responsible practices and reducing environmental impacts on the environment and society. However, both work at different levels and serve various purposes. Both concepts are important for investors, contributors, and business owners. Likewise, both concepts are important for organizations that work to enhance responsible practices in terms of sustainability, practices, and investments.

Huda lahaideb: Thank you.

Abdulrahman Al-Majed: Transcribed by ESG Translations This will help us a lot in the process of strengthening the process of decision-making, the sharing of interests, and at the same time, strengthening the issue of accountability and responsibility. Today, if we have reached this stage, and we have been able to define it well, we will be ready today, because today, Islam, in one way or another, is linked to international entities. So, the ruling will be ready, with all certainty, in one way or another, to link this sentence. And this sentence may be the closure of the circle between stability and standards in general.

Huda lahaideb: Very nice. May Allah bless you. And allow me to move on to our third topic, which is the ruling and its effect on peaceful development.

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir: Dr. Hussain, you gave guidance to this question, especially on the secrets of effective governance. Because, in general, stability, in order to be a part of any organization, must be the first thing in its strategy. Secondly, as a leader in the organization, you must talk about stability. After that, we will talk about clear policies. Before all this, because if we look at today’s governance in Saudi Arabia, when did it become a trend? After Prince Mohammed bin Salman spoke about it. And all his words, at the beginning of the day, became a trend in all sectors. So, today, one of the secrets of governance and stability, in order to be an integral part of the organization and the system, is the strategic stability. The language of the leader that prevails over all existing administrations. The third thing is to have clear policies to monitor its effectiveness at the level of these administrations. After that, we can talk about ESG and the sharing of interests. Today, the distributor, the bank, the government, all of them are an integral part of the system that is stable in all kinds of organizations. Regardless of the sector itself. Because today, honestly, stability suffers with us in its beginnings, like governance in its beginnings. To this day, they give it a label that it is more politics, more political. No, but it has another dimension. We must learn and speak from the beginning to be from the language of the leader in this system.

Huda lahaideb: Thank you very much, Ms. Zahra. Maybe the existence of legislations and systems today has become a necessary and decisive factor for any organization. My question is for Engineer Khaled. How do these systems and legislations affect the governance of environmental and social practices?

Mohandad Khaled: In fact, these systems and legislations affect the governance of environmental and social practices. Through the implementation of standards that must be adhered to by the organizations. It guarantees transparency and consistency in the integration of these standards in business and commercial operations. For example, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the direction of environmental, social and governance practices is formed through the vision of 2030. It does not require government organizations and companies to deal with initiatives, programs and programs of national stability. For example, the Green Saudi Initiative. At the international level, a number of voluntary institutions are formed. For example, the Institute for the Preparation of Global Reports, GRI, and the Council of Standards for Sustainability, SASS. These are the most famous standards in the field of sustainability. There are also international standards for the preparation of financial reports, such as the IFRS. Among them, the S-1 standard and the S-2 standard will have a great impact on companies in the coming years. Also, there are mandatory standards, including the European standards for the preparation of reports on sustainability. These are mandatory standards that will have a great impact on European companies. The goal of these systems, laws and standards is to unify ESG reports, enhance transparency and sustainable development through industries. Finally, staying up to date on systems and regulations ensures systematic commitment and strengthens credibility. It also strengthens the concept of competition governance, which allows organizations to deal with challenges strategically, while building trust with contributors, clients and business owners.

Huda lahaideb: Thank you very much.

Abdulrahman Al-Majed: This is a very important question. I will continue what my colleagues have said about implementing practices. Today, I believe that one of the pillars of success in implementing this standard or this practice is the strategic direction in higher management. Today, how do we ensure that higher management reflects these roles in one way or another at all levels of management in organizations? Today, we know that some organizations have regular meetings. There are four or five meetings a year. How do we, as a board or as a higher management, ensure that all these practices are implemented in one way or another? This is done through some policies that are ensured through practices such as higher management. At the same time, we ensure that we have an environment or a culture that has been established and established within the organization to adopt these practices. Also, the integration of these goals with the organization’s directions so that we can ensure that these practices are implemented. One of the most important tools that members of the board or higher management use is consistent performance reports or sustainability reports. This is very important. Today, we find that, as Engineer Khadr and Dr. Zahra have pointed out, there is a guidance document that was issued by the Financial Market Authority in cooperation with trade unions to organize the process of dissemination of these practices. It may not be necessary now, but in the near future, it is expected to be implemented. In the end, we can also talk about the issue of culture. Today, we must have a basic culture that supports this direction so that there is adoption of these technologies and work on it. This is possible in general. God bless you.

Huda lahaideb: God bless you. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to move on to the third topic. We will talk about risk management in the context of environmental, social, and governance practices.

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir: Of course, as you know, risk management is the backbone of any organization. Dr. Zahra, what is the relationship between risk management, environmental, social, governance, and the importance of the link between them? Of course, there is a comprehensive relationship between the two administrations. Risk management works on studying environmental and social risks in conjunction with the main specialist, ESG management. Of course, there are many organizations in general in any sector that do not have ESG management. However, ESG management is closely related to these practices. What is important is that it interacts, intersects, and integrates with risk management. From my practical experience, we found that the integration of the two administrations in the process of risk management, because it greatly affects the reputation, The relationship is there as a point of view, but it can be considered as an advanced one in terms of co-existence, to be honest. It needs a lot of high management and cooperation between the two administrations in a practical way. The most important thing is to evaluate the risks.

Huda lahaideb: Thank you for the question. An important question.

Mohandad Khaled: There are a number of ways that the organization can use to evaluate the risks, and then combine them in the framework of the risk management. Perhaps one of the most prominent ways is what is known as the risk map, where the risks are divided into two factors, which are the impact and the possibility. The possibility of the risks related to the ESG depends on a number of factors, such as the organizational environment, industrial directions, and the risk record of the organization. As for the impact on the ESG, it can be financial or non-financial. One of the financial impacts, for example, is the existence of fines and penalties on the organization, the loss of willpower, or the increase in costs. One of the non-financial impacts, for example, is the damage to reputation, legal liability, or the loss of credibility. One of the non-financial impacts is the loss of credibility. The risk assessment is based on the scenario analysis. This analysis is based on assumptions about the future, the impact of ESG, and then the evaluation of these impacts and the study of their impact on the organization’s strategy. Also, one of the methods used in risk assessment is what is known as interviews, either with employees, contractors, investors, and business owners to find out their opinions about the risks associated with ESG. Also, one of the methods used in risk assessment is by evaluating data, whether internal data for the organization or external data. All of these methods help accurately evaluate the risks associated with ESG.

Huda lahaideb: Thank you very much. There are important tools that can be used to manage risks associated with society and governance. Mr. Abdur-Rahman, please tell us about these tools.

Abdulrahman Al-Majed: Thank you. A large number of methods and approaches have been pointed out. There are things that may be specialized. Let’s agree that today there is no need for specialists in risk management. Additional tools are recognized, supported, and enabled so that we can reach decision-making. We have things called environmental impact analysis or assessment, and it is usually used by an environmental expert to be more informed. We also have, in addition to the scenarios mentioned by Mr. Mandis, we have things called life cycle assessment. This is usually at the production lines or products related to things that have nothing to do with the environment in one way or another. All of these, of course, are related in one way or another to the institutional risks and are used as tools to work on evaluating the impact in one way or another. An important part, I think, Mr. Khaled, regarding the use of data today, it is necessary to use the data in a suitable way so that we have a combination of advanced technologies, artificial intelligence, and things related to the impact on these data. This will help us a lot in predicting future risks and at the same time provide us with a suitable and good sustainability in one way or another. We have very successful experiments today. We have projects, God willing, now, if you notice, we have NEOM, we have, for example, some projects that have a relationship, for example, that have an impact in one way or another. We see that they put these considerations or standards in consideration and have become leading experiments and excellent practices. These are some of the tools that can be specialized in one way or another, in addition to the risk approaches.

Huda lahaideb: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, let’s move on to our last topic. We will talk about technological advancement and social responsibility and its impact on environmental, social, and governance heritages. Of course, we agreed that digital transformation has become the nerve of life in any organization. Let’s get to know Dr. Zahra about what are the modern technologies that organizations can adopt to guarantee the sustainability of their business and security, and how can we transform today’s numbers and these innovative technologies to prepare us for a more sustainable world.

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir: Thank you. Thank you very much. Of course, Abu Abdallah and Abu Abdur-Rahman did not neglect some of these technologies, but in addition to that, even if I had the technologies, I would need an expert to know how to use these technologies. For example, we have artificial intelligence, and today we are advancing it rapidly, and it helps us rapidly in decision-making, machine learning, blockchain, and support chains as well. We have huge data to help us support decisions through expectations and analysis, and this data is available in general, and it can be used to enhance the other technologies, but we need an expert to help us read this whole system. This artificial intelligence does not work as you know. Today, the private sector in particular has many of these technologies that help them in the process of sustainability and work with consultants and entrepreneurs in these other countries. Honestly, I see the private sector in general today, and it is currently making great progress.

Huda lahaideb: Thank you very much. Social responsibility may have become an important issue in the development of human life. My question is for Engineer Khaled. What are the social responsibility programs that organizations can adopt in line with the goals of the SG?

Mohandad Khaled: Thank you for the question. It is an important question. In fact, there are many social responsibility programs that organizations can adopt to improve the lives of individuals in society. Maybe I will give some examples, and for example, organizations can adopt social partnerships with non-profit organizations in order to re-use computers and tablets with a small group of people. Also, programs and initiatives that aim to raise the educational level among members of society through training courses or educational grants for members of society. There are also initiatives to support small and medium-sized organizations. Maybe we will mention here, for example, a program that is presented by Aramco, where this program aims to strengthen the small and medium-sized organizations by allocating a portion of the purchases to local organizations. We are also working on the development of green cover and the fight against desertification, such as planting trees in desert areas. Also, organizations can adopt initiatives to transform diesel generators into renewable energy sources in order to reduce carbon emissions. These are just a few examples of such initiatives. I think there are many initiatives and various programs. Also, there are various ideas that can be transformed into programs and social initiatives that contribute to achieving the goals of sustainable development. I just want to add a point here.

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir: Thank God, we have advanced sectors in Saudi Arabia. In the past, before the term ESG came out, whether in donations or institutional support or charitable support, we may be starting with the environmental part today, but in terms of other things, we are advanced. So, we have advanced in the past, but today there is a development and a competition between companies.

Huda lahaideb: Thank you very much. We know the importance of integrating environmental, social and governance assets with digital transformation strategies, and it is natural that this integration creates challenges. My last question is for Mr. Abdurrahman. What are the main challenges and how can we overcome them?

Abdulrahman Al-Majed: Thank you very much. I would like to start with the challenges related to what Dr. Zahra said. About a week ago, we had the COP16 conference, which is the largest conference in terms of what Dr. Zahra said. Today, there is a lot of movement on this side, and we see that there is a suitable response. How do you see the general strategy for innovation related to this side? I hope that we will see a bright future. I return to the question of Mr. Huda regarding the challenges. In my opinion, today I see that resistance is the biggest factor and the biggest challenge facing any organization or any side striving for change, and not accepting change and rejecting it. This is perhaps the biggest challenge. And this, of course, dealing with it has become a certain methodology and methods in order to facilitate the process of change, including, for example, the individual, the institutional culture in the organization in general, and at the same time, the process of incentivizing in one way or another to adopt such practices. We also have, as Dr. Zahra said, the subject of technologies. Today, one of the most important challenges is the absence of mature and suitable data to use in order to build decisions on it. Also, perhaps, before the workshop, there was a conversation with your team, and the team, God willing, was the director of the world of governance. Today, we were talking about the subject of governance and measurement, and how to implement measurements, and how to implement all these topics. Today, if the measurements are not present, and there is no clear measurement machine to determine the maturity level in it, it will be very difficult to use it. These are perhaps the most important challenges that may face the process of adoption. God bless you.

Huda lahaideb: God bless you. Mohandad Khaled, Dr. Zahra, if you have any additions before we conclude the session.

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir: My last addition with the challenge that I preferred in Coop60, I personally downloaded it, and it was very great, and I am looking forward to the coming days, and all the things, execution and implementations. But from the challenge also, maybe Abu Abdullah, that the resistance, they talk a lot about sustainability, but I notice from some leaders, some, the leaders have resistance to sustainability, they do not believe in it until now, as a part of the process, or the language of implementation and execution. You must believe in it, so that we can see and touch it on the ground soon.

Huda lahaideb: Very nice, Mohandad Khaled.

Mohandad Khaled: I would like to add one of the important challenges in this subject. Of course, environmental practices are an issue that has arisen in recent years. The main challenge is the resistance to change. It is natural that we find many organizations, especially private organizations, or family companies, even if they are large companies, may be in resistance to this change. Perhaps, looking at the importance and role of these practices, and raising awareness in them will reduce the resistance to change, and also the existence of governmental standards to evaluate these practices will help and make a competition in the implementation of these practices, God willing.

Huda lahaideb: Very nice, God bless you. Of course, in the end, I would like to thank you for your presence and your time, and I would also like to thank our distinguished guests with us today, Dr. Zahra, Mohandad Khaled, Mr. Abdur Rahman, for hosting this session with your warm speeches and discussions, and your valuable experiences. So, thank you very much, and we are moving towards a sustainable digital future. Thank you very much. Thank you. God bless you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of sustainability and ESG practices

speakers

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir

Mohandad Khaled

Abdulrahman Al-Majed

arguments

Sustainability meets current needs without compromising future generations

ESG practices are measurable standards for evaluating organizational performance

summary

All speakers agreed on the significance of sustainability and ESG practices in modern organizations, emphasizing their role in meeting present needs while considering future impacts.

Challenges in implementing ESG practices

speakers

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir

Mohandad Khaled

Abdulrahman Al-Majed

arguments

Resistance to change is a major challenge in implementing ESG practices

summary

The speakers concurred that resistance to change, particularly from leadership, is a significant obstacle in implementing ESG practices within organizations.

Role of technology in enhancing sustainability efforts

speakers

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir

Abdulrahman Al-Majed

arguments

AI, blockchain and big data can enhance sustainability efforts

Specialized tools like environmental impact analysis support risk management

summary

The speakers agreed on the importance of leveraging modern technologies and specialized tools to support sustainability efforts and risk management in the context of ESG.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of clear policies, legislations, and systems in effectively implementing and governing ESG practices within organizations.

speakers

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir

Mohandad Khaled

arguments

Effective governance requires strategic stability and clear policies

Legislations and systems affect governance of environmental and social practices

Both speakers highlighted the close relationship between risk management and ESG practices, discussing various methods for evaluating and managing ESG-related risks.

speakers

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir

Mohandad Khaled

arguments

Risk management is closely related to ESG practices

Organizations can use risk maps and scenario analysis to evaluate ESG risks

Unexpected Consensus

Progress in social responsibility initiatives

speakers

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir

Mohandad Khaled

arguments

Organizations can adopt various social responsibility programs aligned with ESG goals

explanation

Despite focusing on different aspects of ESG, both speakers unexpectedly agreed on the advanced state of social responsibility initiatives in Saudi Arabia, noting that many programs were in place even before the term ESG became popular.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated a high level of agreement on the importance of sustainability and ESG practices, the challenges in implementation, and the role of technology in supporting these efforts. They also shared similar views on the relationship between governance, risk management, and ESG practices.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was notably high, with agreement on core concepts and challenges. This strong consensus implies a shared understanding of the importance of ESG practices and the need for continued efforts in implementation and overcoming resistance to change in organizations.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The speakers demonstrated a high level of agreement on the main topics discussed, including the concepts of sustainability and ESG, the importance of governance and risk management, and the role of technology in supporting these efforts.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was minimal to non-existent. This high level of agreement suggests a shared understanding of the importance of sustainability and ESG practices in modern organizations. It also implies that there is a growing consensus on the need for integrating these practices into business strategies and operations. The lack of disagreement may indicate that the field of sustainability and ESG is becoming more established, with common frameworks and understandings emerging across different sectors and expertise areas.

Partial Agreements

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of clear policies, legislations, and systems in effectively implementing and governing ESG practices within organizations.

speakers

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir

Mohandad Khaled

arguments

Effective governance requires strategic stability and clear policies

Legislations and systems affect governance of environmental and social practices

Both speakers highlighted the close relationship between risk management and ESG practices, discussing various methods for evaluating and managing ESG-related risks.

speakers

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir

Mohandad Khaled

arguments

Risk management is closely related to ESG practices

Organizations can use risk maps and scenario analysis to evaluate ESG risks

Key Takeaways

Sustainability aims to meet current needs without compromising future generations’ ability to meet their needs

ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) practices are measurable standards for evaluating organizational performance

Effective governance requires strategic stability, clear policies, and leadership commitment

Risk management is closely intertwined with ESG practices and crucial for organizational success

Technology like AI, blockchain, and big data can enhance sustainability efforts

Social responsibility programs aligned with ESG goals can improve community life

Resistance to change is a major challenge in implementing ESG practices

Resolutions and Action Items

Organizations should integrate ESG considerations into their strategies and operations

Companies need to adopt appropriate technologies and tools to support ESG implementation

There’s a need to raise awareness about the importance of ESG practices to reduce resistance to change

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively measure and quantify the impact of ESG practices

How to address the lack of mature data for decision-making in ESG implementation

How to overcome leadership resistance to sustainability initiatives in some organizations

Suggested Compromises

None identified

Today, ESG has become a trend. Why did we start with ESG? Many people do not know or have never talked about ESG. Why did we start with the environment? Because the environment is the nature we live in, and then the society we work in, and then we need to clean it.

speaker

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir

reason

This comment provides insight into the prioritization and rationale behind ESG initiatives, explaining why environmental concerns often take precedence.

impact

It set the tone for discussing ESG as an integrated concept and prompted further exploration of its components throughout the conversation.

Sustainability and ESG share a common goal in terms of enhancing responsible practices and reducing environmental impacts on the environment and society. However, both work at different levels and serve various purposes.

speaker

Mohandad Khaled

reason

This comment clarifies the relationship between sustainability and ESG, highlighting their similarities and differences.

impact

It helped differentiate between these often conflated concepts, leading to a more nuanced discussion of their roles in organizational practices.

Today, one of the secrets of governance and stability, in order to be an integral part of the organization and the system, is the strategic stability. The language of the leader that prevails over all existing administrations.

speaker

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir

reason

This insight emphasizes the crucial role of leadership in implementing ESG and sustainability practices.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards the importance of top-down commitment in driving organizational change related to ESG and sustainability.

Today, we must have a basic culture that supports this direction so that there is adoption of these technologies and work on it.

speaker

Abdulrahman Al-Majed

reason

This comment highlights the importance of organizational culture in successfully implementing ESG practices.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include cultural aspects of ESG implementation, beyond just policies and technologies.

We have things called environmental impact analysis or assessment, and it is usually used by an environmental expert to be more informed. We also have, in addition to the scenarios mentioned by Mr. Mandis, we have things called life cycle assessment.

speaker

Abdulrahman Al-Majed

reason

This comment introduces specific tools and methodologies used in ESG risk assessment, providing practical insights.

impact

It moved the conversation from theoretical concepts to practical applications, enriching the discussion with concrete examples of ESG implementation.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively deepening the understanding of ESG and sustainability concepts. They moved the conversation from defining basic terms to exploring practical implementation challenges, the role of leadership and organizational culture, and specific tools used in ESG practices. The discussion evolved from a general overview to a more nuanced exploration of how ESG principles are applied in real-world organizational contexts.

How can organizations effectively implement and measure the impact of ESG practices?

speaker

Abdulrahman Al-Majed

explanation

This was implied when discussing the challenges of implementing ESG practices, particularly the need for clear measurement mechanisms to determine maturity levels in organizations.

What strategies can be employed to overcome resistance to change in implementing sustainability and ESG practices?

speaker

Abdulrahman Al-Majed and Mohandad Khaled

explanation

Both speakers identified resistance to change as a major challenge in adopting ESG practices, suggesting the need for further exploration of effective strategies to address this issue.

How can organizations better integrate ESG considerations into their risk management processes?

speaker

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir

explanation

Dr. Zahra mentioned the need for better integration between ESG management and risk management, indicating an area for further research on practical integration methods.

What are the most effective ways to use artificial intelligence and big data in supporting ESG decision-making and risk assessment?

speaker

Abdulrahman Al-Majed and Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir

explanation

Both speakers mentioned the potential of AI and big data in ESG practices, suggesting a need for further research on practical applications and best practices.

How can organizations develop a culture that supports and embraces ESG practices?

speaker

Abdulrahman Al-Majed

explanation

This was mentioned as an important factor in successfully implementing ESG practices, indicating a need for further research on cultural change strategies.

What are the implications of upcoming mandatory ESG reporting standards, such as those in Europe, for global organizations?

speaker

Mohandad Khaled

explanation

The speaker mentioned new mandatory standards, suggesting a need for further research on their global impact and how organizations can prepare.

How can organizations effectively balance the environmental, social, and governance aspects of ESG in their strategies and operations?

speaker

Dr. Zahra Al-Nasir

explanation

The discussion touched on the different aspects of ESG, implying a need for research on how to effectively balance and integrate all three components.

Summary

This discussion focused on the challenges and opportunities for women and girls in internet governance and digital technology, particularly in Africa. Participants highlighted the significant gender digital divide, with statistics showing lower internet connectivity rates for women compared to men in Africa. Key barriers identified included affordability, lack of digital skills, cultural obstacles, and issues with digital identity.

Several initiatives to address these challenges were discussed. The UN Economic Commission for Africa is running programs like the Africa Girl Recording Camp to provide digital skills training to young women. The Internet Society and its Foundation are working on improving access, digital literacy, and safety for women online. Organizations like GirlHype are focused on bridging the digital divide through coding classes and infrastructure improvements in underserved areas.

Participants emphasized the importance of including women in policymaking and internet governance processes to ensure their perspectives are represented. The need for gender-responsive policies and mentorship programs was highlighted. Speakers also noted the economic benefits of closing the gender digital divide, including potential GDP growth and job creation.

The discussion concluded with a call for collective action across sectors and borders to dismantle barriers holding women back in the digital space. Participants stressed the urgency of addressing these issues to ensure women are not left behind as digital transformation accelerates globally.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The gender digital divide, particularly in Africa, with statistics showing lower internet access and connectivity for women compared to men

– Barriers facing women in accessing digital technologies, including affordability, digital skills gaps, cultural barriers, and lack of digital identity

– Initiatives and programs aimed at increasing women’s digital skills and participation, such as training programs and entrepreneurship support

– Policy recommendations to address the gender digital divide, including improving access, digital literacy, online safety, and representation in decision-making

– The importance of infrastructure development to enable women’s digital participation, especially in rural areas

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to examine the challenges facing women and girls in accessing and benefiting from digital technologies, particularly in Africa, and to explore solutions and initiatives to increase women’s participation in internet governance and the digital economy.

Tone:

The tone was primarily serious and focused, with speakers presenting statistics and discussing challenges. However, there were also notes of optimism and determination, particularly when discussing initiatives and potential solutions. The tone became more personal and emotional towards the end, with expressions of gratitude and commitment to the cause.

Speakers

– Anja Gengo: IGF Secretariat representative

– Sarah Armstrong: Speaking on behalf of the Internet Society and Internet Society Foundation

– Baratang Miya: Founder of GirlHype, organizer of Women Internet Governance Forum summit

– Mactar Seck: Senior Economic Affairs Officer at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)

Additional speakers:

– Toko Miya: CEO of GirlHype (speech read by Baratang Miya)

The discussion focused on the challenges and opportunities for women and girls in internet governance and digital technology, with a particular emphasis on Africa. Participants from various organisations, including the IGF Secretariat, Internet Society, GirlHype, and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), contributed their insights and experiences.

Gender Digital Divide in Africa

A significant gender digital divide was highlighted as a primary concern, particularly in Africa. Mactar Seck from UNECA provided striking statistics, noting that while women constitute 50.5% of Africa’s population, only 30% of women are connected to the internet compared to 44% of men. This disparity underscores the urgent need to address barriers to women’s digital inclusion.

The speakers identified several key obstacles:

1. Affordability: The cost of mobile phones and internet access remains prohibitively high for many women in Africa.

2. Digital Skills Gap: There is a significant lack of digital literacy and skills among women, hindering their ability to fully participate in the digital economy.

3. Infrastructure: Inadequate digital infrastructure, especially in rural areas, limits women’s access to the internet and digital technologies.

4. Cultural Barriers: Societal norms and expectations can impact women’s confidence and approach to technology from an early age.

5. Digital Identity: Mactar Seck highlighted that out of 400 million people in Africa without any legal form of identity, 60% are women, further limiting their access to various services.

Baratang Miya, founder of GirlHype, introduced Toko Miya, the current CEO of GirlHype, who provided more specific insights into the challenges faced by women in Africa. These included limited access to devices, high data costs, and inadequate infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. Baratang also shared a personal observation about the difference in approach between boys and girls when faced with technical challenges, noting that girls often hesitate due to societal expectations.

Economic Impact of Women’s Digital Inclusion

The speakers unanimously agreed on the substantial economic benefits of closing the gender digital divide. Mactar Seck emphasised that excluding women from digital access results in significant GDP losses. Sarah Armstrong, speaking on behalf of Sally Wentworth, the CEO of the Internet Society who was unable to attend, reinforced this point, stating that women’s digital participation can boost economies and drive innovation.

Baratang Miya stressed the need to empower women entrepreneurs in digital markets. Sarah Armstrong further highlighted social enterprises as a promising opportunity for women’s economic participation, citing a recent report that social enterprises created 200 million jobs in the current year.

Initiatives to Promote Women’s Digital Inclusion

The discussion showcased various initiatives aimed at increasing women’s digital skills and participation:

1. UNECA’s Africa Girl Recording Camp: This programme targets women and girls aged 12 to 25, providing digital skills training in robotics, AI, 3D printing, and coding. UNECA has also established a center for AI research in Brazzaville, Congo, and a STEAM center in Rwanda.

2. Internet Society and Foundation: They offer grants and training programmes focused on improving access, digital literacy, and online safety for women.

3. GirlHype: The organisation works on digital literacy and infrastructure improvements in schools, particularly targeting underserved areas. Baratang Miya shared an example of implementing a coding program in a rural school in Limpopo, South Africa, highlighting the infrastructure challenges they faced.

4. IGF Women’s Summit: Anja Gengo from the IGF Secretariat mentioned this initiative to increase women’s engagement in internet governance discussions.

5. Zatna: Baratang Miya mentioned Zatna’s contribution to cybersecurity skills training for girls.

Policy and Representation

The speakers agreed on the critical importance of including women’s perspectives in internet governance and policymaking. They noted that women are currently underrepresented in these roles, which perpetuates structural barriers to women’s digital participation. Baratang Miya emphasised the need for gender-responsive policies in digital transformation.

Mactar Seck highlighted the Global Digital Compact objectives, which focus on inclusion and closing the digital divide. The speakers concurred that implementing these objectives could significantly contribute to addressing the gender digital divide.

Challenges and Future Directions

Several unresolved issues were identified, including:

1. Addressing cultural barriers limiting women’s digital participation in some regions

2. Developing specific strategies to make digital devices and internet access more affordable for women

3. Increasing funding and support for women entrepreneurs in digital markets

4. Improving online safety and reducing cyberbullying/harassment of women

The discussion concluded with a call for collective action across sectors and borders to dismantle barriers holding women back in the digital space. Participants stressed the urgency of addressing these issues to ensure women are not left behind as digital transformation accelerates globally.

Anja Gengo closed the session by mentioning an upcoming discussion on women and girls in Afghanistan who lack basic rights to education, highlighting the broader context of gender inequality issues. Baratang Miya expressed gratitude to Anja Gengo for her commitment to the Women in IGF Summit.

In summary, the discussion provided a comprehensive overview of the challenges facing women in the digital space, particularly in Africa, from basic access and identity issues to skills development and representation in governance. It highlighted the economic imperative of closing the gender digital divide and showcased various initiatives aimed at empowering women in the digital economy. The strong consensus among speakers on key issues suggests a clear recognition of the challenges and potential solutions, which could facilitate coordinated efforts and policy development in this critical area.

Anja Gengo: Baratang for years on better engagement and inclusion of girls and women in in the IGF and addressing of those topics and I’m glad that as a result of that collaboration is the Women’s Summit. So very shortly I hope we will hear from of course Baratang Mia as well as from Elisabeth Kalitsirom-Walle as our co- moderators and then I hope that with Toko the audio issues will be resolved. Toko is the CEO of Girl Hype Women Who Code. We’re very lucky here to have a person that has been a great I think focal point for global engagement in internet governance given that the ECA was the secretariat for a very successful African IGF just several weeks ago. So we’re here from Makhtar Sekh, Senior Economic Affairs Officer at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. After that we’ll hear from Horace Chimpere, founder Herford Tech. Sarah Armstrong is with us from the Internet Society. Zanive Asare will be also joining us, Vice President and Head of Public Policy Africa Yangon. And then most of this session will be reserved for an open dialogue and discussion focusing on how to better engage women and girls in internet governance. What would be very important for this forum to hear is especially from the backgrounds and the communities you are coming from to tell us what are the good practices but also not so good practices with respect to gender equality, overall equity and position generally speaking of women and girls in the digital environment. So without further ado I would like to ask our technicians can we try again to see if we can hear Toco speaking. I’ll just give a minute. Toko, maybe you can try to unmute yourself. I think we’re still experiencing technical issues, so if we don’t mind, perhaps we can start from what we have here in the room. So Maktar, I won’t put you on the spot at the beginning, but I know you’re also a great advocate for gender equality, women inclusion, and speaking always a lot about the importance of having women and girls with active role and equal role in these processes on Internet governance, which is not our reality. So from your perspective and from the perspective of the ECA, can you share maybe about what are your observations, what is your work about, what do you see now, what do you think the global community should focus on to ensure that gender digital divide is finally closed?

Mactar Seck: Thank you, Tanja, for this opening session. I think it’s very important when you want to take the opportunity of the digital economy to take into consideration the role of women and girls in this digital space. Why? You know in Africa we have 50.5% of the population are women, and when you look at this access to Internet, we have 30% of women connected to Internet, 31% connected compared to 44% men. The gap is high. And we have seen also since the… From 2023 up to 2024, we have a decrease of the women connected to the internet. When you look at the global connectivity in Africa, in 2023 we were at 37%. And October 2014-2024, we are at 38%. We have an increase of 1% of the connectivity from 2023-2024. And in the meantime, we have the gap between men and women increase, because the gap now is at 30%, 1.3%, compared to 10% before. Why? We have several reasons for that. First, there is an issue of affordability for women in Africa to own their mobile phone. We have also the digital skills barrier, language barrier for several women in the continent. We have also cultural barrier in the continent. And also the issue of digital identity. In Africa, we have almost 400 million, more than 400 million without any legal form of identity. And among the 400 million, 60% are women. And this 60% doesn’t have any access to any service. Land service, social service, administration service, higher education service, because they don’t have a legal identity. It is a problem. Why we at the UNECA, we try to find a solution by several initiatives. It is one. IGF, it is a good… forum to discuss on this idea and I think since we have IGF we have seen a lot of progress in the connectivity among the women because we start very low when we have an IGF of 2.6 percent and now we have a 30 something percent. This is something big progress on access to women and also what we need also to provide access to women because it is an issue of development. In developing countries excluding women on access of digital will provide a loss of 1.5 trillion dollars on the GDP. It’s a lot and the government should understand they need to provide access to the women and girls in this digital era. At ICA we have several programs. We have one program called Africa Girl Recording Camp. What is this program? This program targets women and girls aged from 12 to 25 years to give them digital skills on the robotic, on AI, on what call it on 3D printing, on coding. How can they use a technology to resolve their problem and this program was launched in 2022 and around 40,000 girls participate in this program, get this training. 308 projects have been developed by young girls and these projects are very innovative because you know technology is not something you need. You have to learn at the beginning. Some girl doesn’t have any knowledge skills in technology when they join the program and after two weeks they come up with a key project initiative. They know how to code, how to use a 3D printing. how to develop application on AI. And this is something showing Africa can play, women in Africa can play a key role in this for industrial revolution. Also, another program, it is to build the skill of the women entrepreneurship. We have one program with Alibaba on FinTech. We call this program Africa Women Tech. How to build the capacity of women in the technology side, the entrepreneur women in the technology side. And this program now is issued to five country. And the objective is by 2026 to reach all African country. I think there are a lot of things. Also, on the financial inclusion, we have seen a lot of progress on women to access to the bank account. But there is still some gap where we have to sort it out quickly. If you want to reach the sustainable development goal. When we talk about sustainable development goal, we already adopted, I think, two months ago in September, this Global Digital Compact. And the Global Digital Compact has five objective. And two objective, all objective are focused on women. Because when we talk about connectivity, objective one, it is to close this digital divide. Digital divide means gender digital divide also. When we talk about objective two on inclusion and the benefits of digital technology for all, women are an important role to play. Because we need to increase everybody in this digital information society. And as you know, Africa has to create around 625 million job by 2030. And all this job need a technology component. And women have a lot of opportunity to be part on this job create. When we talk about security. on objective 3. Security is important because you know we have a some issue in Africa we have a lot of lady now on the digital space and they are victim from this cyber crime and they don’t want to say it yeah it is a problem a lot of people a lot of lady woman get attack on internet but they don’t talk about this for cultural barrier and we need also to do to bridges is a cultural barrier for people to protect them on this internet on the internet on this information society also to give them more confidence to talk about their problem facing in this digital technology when you talk about this data sharing also a very important objective for of the global digital compact data sharing woman also as our big role there because you know almost to we have a 30% connected man woman 43 men but the issue is when we go to social media in Facebook it is a 50-50 a 50% of the woman connected to be in social media and they share a lot of information we need to educate them what kind of information you have to share in Facebook hmm what kind of information you have to get in in Facebook in the social media for Twitter they are not very active because they are only 3% now but we need also to educated our woman how and they have to share govern their data it’s a very important and the last one it is when we talk about this governance of the artificial intelligence yeah it is very important where we can develop the skill of this woman and we to be key actor we need to create a lot of job for woman and there is a possibility now with this AI technology to create this job in the continent While we have several activities also at the UNECA, one is we already established a center of research of artificial intelligence in Brazzaville, Congo, and this also will help to build the skill, develop the research for women in the continent. And we are establishing now a STEAM center in Rwanda for the women also in the early stage now can start developing their skills on digital. To protect them, we are also working with the government of Congo to build this African center of cyber security to protect all the African citizens in this digital era. It is some key element I would like to highlight today, and we have as an initiative, and thank you very much for inviting UNECA here, and we also commend the work you have done at the IGF Secretariat because since 2005, a lot has been done, and we have seen your motivation, your dynamism in the continent, and we organized a successful IGF in Ethiopia two years ago, and I think it is a testimony that the IGF Secretariat is doing very well, and congratulations for all the work done. Thank you very much.

Anja Gengo: Well, thank you very much, Makhtar. First of all, I want to thank you for setting the framework for this discussion. You’ve shared some very important numbers and statistics, some alarming numbers, but also some on a more positive note that we are making a change, especially in the past 20 years. I’m also happy to hear that you’re putting us in a framework of what could be the next advancement for all of us, which is the implementation of the recently agreed Global Digital Compact at the level… of the member states. I hope that we can expand that into a very important momentum we are now, which are the preparations for the 20 years review of the World Summit on the Information Society, where the concept of gender equality online and closing gender-based digital divide is also central and really cross-cuts the action lines. So I hope we will hear also about that part and I’m very, very happy that the person who gathered us all here finally made it. So welcome Baratang. I’m sure we are, you see, we are meeting one challenge at a time. We have Baratang now here. I’m sure soon we will have colleagues online joining us by audio here in this room because unfortunately still we cannot hear them. Baratang, I will now give the floor back to you As our moderator and the chair, we’ve heard some very important statements from Maktar, something that you know by heart because you are living this topic, first of all, through your work, but also through just your work with the community and continuous engagement. And I want to congratulate you on organizing traditionally this session. This is what I said at the beginning, where we all come, as I said, really with great honor, but also with great responsibility given the topic and the fact that we are still leaving behind many women and girls while the technology is rapidly going forward. So we’ve heard from Maktar. I spoke quite a lot, but we also have Sarah here, so I will give back the floor to you. Okay.

Baratang Miya: Thank you, Anja. I have to say I can always count on Maktar and Anja. I’m very sorry for being late and last night I had a call with Maktar about the session and he said to me, Baratang, don’t be late. And as the universe heard it, I was late. I’m so sorry. Your excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor again to welcome you to the Women Internet Governance Forum. summit here in Riyadah. This is our third session. I think Magda spoke about it. And this session is only successful because UNECA and UN Secretariat is really committed to it. When I say commitment, I mean they make sure that they fund the women to come to the session. They make sure that I get all the support I need to get speakers, to get people to sit on board. And the youth, some of the women that were youth, have now moved up and are now speakers on our panel, which is very good. So I must say your support is a testament to your commitment, Anya. I remember when I discussed the session with you earlier on that you said, I’m committed to helping you. And it’s really been three years of doing that. And it’s something that I’m really proud of. And Magda, your commitment to promoting diversity and inclusion of women in this space is something I value. And it goes further than this, because I work with you in Africa, and I see what you are doing for digital public infrastructure and for everything. And Sarah, I know we contacted you last minute, and you made sure you sit here. And that shows a commitment to the ecosystem that people want to change, and women can be on the leadership. I’m not going to take long, because I want more speaking. But for me, it’s your kindness and generosity is always appreciated as people who are here. But I always think of what Malala Yousaf once said. He said, one child, one teacher, one book, one plan can change the world. It is a very simple statement. But if you think about it, for us as women, that’s what we live with daily. It might be a seat on the table on the Internet Governance Forum, but we need more women. And the other thing that I take with is what the Secretary General said at the GDC summit, he said no one should be left behind. Now we are going to leave lots of people behind unless we have women on a seat, unless we have women contributing on policy writing. So putting together a panel was meant to make sure that today, as we are sitting here, we have those connections of one woman, one connection, one idea that can change the internet governance landscape and make sure that we are creating a brighter future and that’s inclusive for women. Thank you. I don’t know where to take because you spoke a lot. Okay, and I’ll give back, hand over to Sarah.

Sarah Armstrong: Hello, now? Okay, good. Good morning and good afternoon or good evening to anyone joining us online. My name is Sarah Armstrong and I’m speaking on behalf of the Internet Society as well as the Internet Society Foundation. We are two different organizations. The Internet Society Foundation is a supporting organization of the Internet Society. Many people may know us already as ISOC or the ISOC Foundation. So I’m here actually for our CEO, Sally Wentworth. She got delayed, as happens. There are just times where your planes decide they’re not gonna get you where you wanna go when you wanna go there. So under those circumstances, she asked me if I would please join the panel and I am very happy to do so, but she does send her regards. So I’d like to speak a little bit also on more statistics to build on my colleague here and talk about the problem, but also, obviously, talk about some of the solutions. And I’d like to speak specifically in addition. to the solutions of the Internet Society and the Internet Society Foundation have to addressing this issue, to speak about a direction forward. So, I want to start by sharing our vision statement. The vision statement for the Internet Society and the Internet Society Foundation is, the Internet is for everyone. Well, yes, for everyone, but we have a long way to go. It’s especially an issue with women, as we know, and we’ve heard already. I don’t have to tell you that there are so many more men right now than women who are involved in the Internet in all kinds of ways, and we’re really trying to change that. It’s really holding back society to not have the women as involved as they could or should be. So, as we’ve heard, there are more men than women on the Internet, and this is particularly prominent in low-income countries. So, that’s a target for a lot of the work that we do. According to the Women in the Digital Economy, which some people may know as YDEF, ensuring women can fully participate in the global digital economy, entire economies will benefit in terms of a higher GDP, stronger workforce, and higher levels of innovation. So, there’s a real reason why this is about not just empowering the women, but helping to really add to the value of the community and the things that they all can contribute together. So, we also have a report that says the gender digital divide has a direct and negative effect on global development and inhibits global goals for creating inclusive societies and economies. So, we need to make changes and close this gender digital divide. It’s important. So, as I said, ISOC and the Foundation are both working to do that. In many cases, the work that we’re doing is focusing on training, because that’s so important, is to get women into environments where they can learn skills. We have an example where the Internet Society did a training for women in Mali, and in that case they discovered that these women had never had opportunities to learn to do any sort of work, the real hard skills work of how you create Internets, splice cables, configure a network, all that type of thing. And so we are addressing that through training. And we also have a lot of other programs that do that, and we’re making a real effort to make these programs more inclusive of women and more targeting of women because of what we’re talking about here and the impact that they can make on overall communities, overall economies. In addition, the Foundation, which is an organization that funds other organizations to do this type of work, we have many grants in many countries where our organizations, our partner organizations are really out there doing a lot of training and encouraging women to be involved in providing opportunities otherwise not be available. So I encourage you to look at both the Internet Society and the Internet Society Foundation websites to see all the different programs we have. And what’s interesting with the Foundation, the applications that we’re getting, we’re starting to see more people who want to use their program funding to target women. So this is all really encouraging to see in light of the environment that we’re working in and the environment that I’ve described with some of these statistics. And we also at ISOC and the Foundation are making one of our 2030 goals to bring in an affordable and affordable, resilient, reliable internet, and we want to make sure that we do this with women in mind because we know that women are important for the reasons that I’ve stated to be involved in helping to really augment countries in the digital age. And so we’re really focusing on women for the next five-year strategy that we’ve developed, and this is a strategy that’s both for the Internet Society and the Internet Society Foundation. We are looking specifically at connecting women and focusing on social enterprises. That is an area that we feel is important. It’s a real sustainable effort, or excuse me, anchor for the community, and according to the 2024 Global Social Enterprises Report, social enterprises created in 2024 200 million jobs. So this is important. It’s a good, important place for us to focus. So those are some of the areas that the Internet Society and the Internet Society Foundation are focused, and those are the statistics and the issues that we are addressing with our focus. And then I’d like to just turn quickly to looking at policy, since when we’re here, we talk a lot about policy recommendations. So again, quoting YDEF, their report, they are recommending to close the gender digital divide that they focus, or we focus, on five different areas. First, improved access to affordable devices and online experiences. Second, increased availability of relevant products and tools. So this goes to all the things that we’ve just heard about. Elevating digital literacy and skills, an area I’ve just spoken more about. enhancing safety and security, and the fifth is generating data and insights. And I think we can all agree that these are important places for us to focus, so not just that women have more opportunities, but that the communities can benefit from the women in their communities and all that they have to offer. So in closing, thank you for your attention. I want to say that still over one-third of the world’s population is not connected, which translates to about 2.6 billion people, and women and girls are the most affected by this situation. So we need to acknowledge this, work together, and meaningfully empower women in the internet governance spaces to bring their perspective to internet governance and to push for change and make this change happen. So there’s a lot of work to do. We’ve started. We’re working very hard and diligently to continue to do this. The organizations to which we provide funds are also doing this. We know that many of you out there are doing this, and we know that we can work together and make a difference. So again, on behalf of Sally Wentworth and myself, Sarah Armstrong, thank you so much for your attention. I look forward to a discussion.

Baratang Miya: Thank you very much for a great speech. I’m used to hearing the mic speaking back, so my brain is looking for that. So I should take this off. I am going to read Togo’s speech. Apparently the people online cannot hear clearly and she can’t get through, so… I’m going to read Toko’s speech. Toko Mia is the CEO of GirlHype, which I founded 23 years ago to close the digital gap for women and girls. When I founded GirlHype, Toko was 11, and she’s been with the organization since then, and now she’s a big woman and running it as the CEO. I’m busy living life. So I’ll read her speech. On behalf of Toko, this is how she wrote it. As we gather in this room, we recognize the vast potential of digital technologies to transform lives, elevate economies, and bridge digital divides. But we also acknowledge the disparities that remains, particularly for women in Africa and access, and across the global South. Sector problems related to women in digital markets and transformation. Number one, limited access to digital infrastructure. And this is a big one for women in Africa, who apparently the people online can hear now. I’m not sure if she can talk. Toko, can you talk? Respond so that I should be able to hand you over. I’m sorry, the people online can hear now. She’s not responding. So number one, limited access to digital infrastructure. I think this is the bigger thing. Once you solve infrastructure, you would have sorted women’s problems. That’s my belief. You sort out one issue, which is digital infrastructure, women will move mountains. Let’s just say that. Women have access to resources. They will make the best of it. They will move table mountain and combine it with signal mountain and make one big thing. That’s why in Africa, there’s a saying that you empower a woman, you’re empowering a village. It doesn’t say you empower a man. It was very specific, written generations ago, that empower one woman, it’s generations. So I truly believe in this. Sorry, now I’m. elaborating on someone else’s speech. I’m going to read it as she wrote it. In many parts of Africa, women face significant barriers to access the internet and digital tools. Rural areas. Can she hear? Can she talk? She’s online. Oh, she can talk. Okay. In many parts of Africa, women face significant barriers to accessing the internet and digital tools. Rural areas in particular are plagued by poor connectivity, high cost, and lack of infrastructure, leaving women disconnected and unable to leverage digital opportunities for education or entrepreneurship. Digital literacy and skills gap. The digital divide is not merely about access, but it’s also about skills needed to use technology effectively. Women often lack the training and confidence to navigate digital platforms, which stem as their participation in e-commerce, remote work, and other digitally driven economic activities. This is where we really need to hone on. And as Gail Hype, I must say, I’m proud to say, ISOC has been supporting us. We have been getting small grants to run programs for digital literacies for women. That’s something that really now we should be focusing on. Skills for women is a big thing, or else we’re leaving them behind. Number three is gender bias in digital markets. Women entrepreneurs in digital markets face systemic challenges, including limited access to funding, discriminatory practices, and lack of gender responsive policies. This prevents women-owned businesses from scaling and thriving in the digital economy. The fourth one is safety and security online. Cyberbullying, harassment, and gender-based violence in online spaces deter women from fully participating in digital markets and governance. robust protections and support exacerbates these challenges. Number five is policy and representation gaps. Women remain underrepresented in policy making spaces where digital transformation strategies are shaped. This leads to perpetuation of structural barriers that disproportionately affects women’s ability to benefit from digital opportunities. And the key barriers of access in Africa for women’s economic participations is that the integration of these challenges mentioned above form significant barriers to women’s economic participation. So if women have no access to the internet, which we now know that the internet is not just the internet, it’s information, data, access, change of life. If women do not have access to those things we’re talking about, they lack affordability. The cost of, it’s cost also by affordability, which is the cost of devices and data remains prohibitive for many women. It causes constraints for them to participate and it discourage the outright participation. Now, as she wrote this, but I understand what she means. The outright participation is very easy. We work with boys and girls. If you put a laptop in front of a boy, there’s nothing wrong with that. 90% of the boys, if it breaks, they call other boys and say, it broke down. We put it in front of girls. If it breaks, they are afraid of coming to me and say, I broke the laptop. They come to me and say, I broke it. And this is a simple thing, that girls want perfection. And it’s the societal norms. Whilst boys are not afraid of breaking it and saying, it’s broken, fix it. And those are little minor things. because as Girl Hype, we do teach boys. Those boys will excel super fast because they are used to playing games. They are, the association from childhood to put them in a tech space is so strong. Girls have that, but not African girls. We shouldn’t just look at girls from first world countries and assume that we are seeing on the internet. That’s the reality of Africa. The reality of Africa is if a house has a computer, what an achievement in the house. The whole thing last year, my whole mission was to get parents to buy one computer for the home. Just encouraging them, please just buy one computer because there’s a difference between working on this and working on a computer. And I think that’s one of the things I really need us to hone on when you open discussion because I see her story is very long. So I’m skipping some of the things and I’ll go to what we are doing at Girl Hype. We are not just challenging these norms and societal challenges that women are facing. We’re really bridging the digital divide and we elevating women to come into the tech space and making sure we support them as they grow along. So we have a project in Kamuloi. Kamuloi in Limpopo, when we entered the space, we implemented a coding class in a school. This is 2023. In 2023, South Africa is one of the elite countries that I know of. But in 2023, a school had an internet port going straight to the school principal’s office and he was the one with internet access. And then there was another port going straight to the computer lab, which was giving 30 students access to your computer lab. Now, those students could only access the internet for one hour. And when you upload a PDF, it doesn’t upload because the data was running at 2.7 megabytes per. It was just horrible because I’m not used to that. So I walked in and I said, I can’t work like this. So I went to the sponsors and I said, we need to change this. And thanks to the company that was sponsoring us, they came, we had to rebuild a new computer lab. We had to call the internet service provider, leave what the government had put there because it doesn’t work. Build a new computer lab in the school, get the new internet service provider to come. Fortunately, they agreed to sponsor us for three years, put in the line. When they came, they discovered the whole community has no access to proper internet. In fact, they have access to something. It’s not internet. So they can’t put what is needed to put the broadband. So they had to put new layering. It was such a, like it took us six months to implement a program of two weeks, just building the infrastructure. And that for me was an eye opener to say, we also underestimate how dispersed rural areas and urban areas are because we work in Cape Town. And it’s one of the, all schools have proper internet. All teachers have access to everything. And we couldn’t implement a two week program. It took us six months to lay the proper infrastructure. Those are the realities. We work with Zatna and thanks to them, they’ve really built on cyber security skills and they’re helping us to make sure that girls understand the cyber security online and they understand what are the challenges and how to prepare themselves for future. They were to apply for jobs. What does it mean to post today? Girl High participate on UNIGF WSIS. We advocate for gender responsive policies and making sure that we create mentorship as we enter spaces. And she’s got a call to action to say, ladies and gentlemen, as we deliberate today, let us remember that addressing these challenges requires collective action. It demands that we work together across sectors, borders and disciplines to dismantle the barriers that holds women. Back, I invite you to join hands with organizations like Girl Help to create a future with no women left, no women is left behind in a digital transformation. Together we can build a world where women’s potential is fully realized and their contribution drive innovation, inclusion, and progress for all. Thank you and I look forward to engaging in this inspiring summit ahead. On behalf of TOKO, thank you. We have three minutes for comments. Anyone with a burning comment towards the speakers or questions? The floor is open. Any comments from online? I know you guys can’t hear. I’ll close the session and say thank you very much, Magda. I think at this point you’ve passed the phase of being the secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum to being the champion of the Women in IGF Summit. I really appreciate that. You accepted this program wholeheartedly. And I think it’s beyond what IGF and the secretariat is saying. It’s from you as a person in believing that this platform will change for women participation. And you can see with your commitment and making sure that funding and the speaking and everything. Even you sitting here, I know you have other sessions to be at. You were supposed to be here for 15 minutes. minutes, and you made sure that this session is successful, that doesn’t go noticed. And I’m even getting emotional. Thank you.

Anja Gengo: Can I also thank you, Baratang, sincerely? I think this whole work started really because of you championing women and girls, raising a wonderful girl, if I may also add. You know, yes, I am supposed to go to another session, and it’s very challenging for the Secretariat to be in any of the sessions because of the logistics. But as I said, these sessions are very important to us. They’re close to our heart, and we believe that if we have these types of dialogues, which always give birth to good partnerships and cooperation, then we can make a change. It’s really coincidental that I’m going, and I want to invite you to that session after this one, to a session which will be focused on women and girls that don’t have basic human rights to go to school. There is a session at Workshop Room 4, starting just now, where we will be hearing from colleagues speaking about the situation in Afghanistan, closing of the schools where digital is the only window to those girls and women to continue with their education and with, to an extent, I wouldn’t even call it a normal life according to our standards, but at least a way to communicate with others and to continue learning. And perhaps we will not close this session. We can maybe move to Workshop Room 4 and continue discussing, I think, our global voices really needed for women and girls in that country. I had a great pleasure to work with them a couple of years back. It’s been really a wonderful experience that will always stay with me. And I think now is the time that we respond to them with what we can do within our capacity, the way they were responding to us within their capacity, building, helping us to build this really strong… ecosystem. So thank you so much once again. Thank you very much Baratang. I know it’s been challenging always to be first, but I think you broke the ice and it’s been a wonderful dialogue. Thank you. you … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …

Agreement Points

Gender digital divide in Africa

speakers

Mactar Seck

Sarah Armstrong

Baratang Miya

arguments

Limited internet access for women, especially in rural areas

Lack of digital skills and literacy among women

Need for improved digital infrastructure and affordability

summary

All speakers agreed that there is a significant gender digital divide in Africa, characterized by limited internet access, lack of digital skills, and inadequate infrastructure, particularly affecting women in rural areas.

Economic impact of women’s digital inclusion

speakers

Mactar Seck

Sarah Armstrong

Baratang Miya

arguments

Excluding women from digital access results in GDP losses

Women’s digital participation can boost economies and innovation

Need to empower women entrepreneurs in digital markets

summary

The speakers concurred that including women in the digital economy would lead to significant economic benefits, including increased GDP, innovation, and entrepreneurship.

Initiatives to promote women’s digital inclusion

speakers

Mactar Seck

Sarah Armstrong

Baratang Miya

arguments

UN ECA programs like Africa Girl Recording Camp

Internet Society and Foundation grants and training programs

GirlHype’s work on digital literacy and infrastructure in schools

summary

All speakers highlighted various initiatives and programs aimed at promoting women’s digital inclusion through training, grants, and infrastructure development.

Policy and representation in internet governance

speakers

Sarah Armstrong

Baratang Miya

Anja Gengo

arguments

Importance of women’s perspectives in internet governance

Need for gender-responsive policies in digital transformation

Women underrepresented in internet governance and policymaking

summary

The speakers agreed on the importance of including women’s perspectives in internet governance and policymaking, emphasizing the need for gender-responsive policies.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the significant economic benefits of including women in the digital economy, highlighting the potential for increased GDP and innovation.

speakers

Mactar Seck

Sarah Armstrong

arguments

Excluding women from digital access results in GDP losses

Women’s digital participation can boost economies and innovation

Both speakers highlighted the interconnected issues of digital skills gaps and infrastructure challenges as key barriers to women’s digital inclusion.

speakers

Sarah Armstrong

Baratang Miya

arguments

Lack of digital skills and literacy among women

Need for improved digital infrastructure and affordability

Unexpected Consensus

Social enterprises as an opportunity for women’s economic participation

speakers

Sarah Armstrong

arguments

Social enterprises as an opportunity for women’s economic participation

explanation

While other speakers focused on broader economic impacts, Armstrong uniquely highlighted social enterprises as a specific opportunity for women’s economic participation in the digital space. This perspective was unexpected but aligns with the overall theme of economic empowerment.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong agreement on the existence of a gender digital divide, the economic benefits of women’s digital inclusion, the need for initiatives to promote women’s participation, and the importance of women’s representation in internet governance.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers, with shared perspectives on key issues. This strong agreement implies a clear recognition of the challenges and potential solutions for promoting women’s digital inclusion, which could facilitate coordinated efforts and policy development in this area.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

There were no significant disagreements among the speakers

difference_level

Low level of disagreement. The speakers generally agreed on the main issues and approaches to addressing the gender digital divide. This consensus suggests a unified understanding of the challenges and potential solutions, which could facilitate more effective action in promoting women’s digital inclusion.

Partial Agreements

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the significant economic benefits of including women in the digital economy, highlighting the potential for increased GDP and innovation.

speakers

Mactar Seck

Sarah Armstrong

arguments

Excluding women from digital access results in GDP losses

Women’s digital participation can boost economies and innovation

Both speakers highlighted the interconnected issues of digital skills gaps and infrastructure challenges as key barriers to women’s digital inclusion.

speakers

Sarah Armstrong

Baratang Miya

arguments

Lack of digital skills and literacy among women

Need for improved digital infrastructure and affordability

Key Takeaways

There is a significant gender digital divide in Africa, with women having limited access to internet and digital technologies, especially in rural areas

Closing the gender digital divide has major economic benefits, including boosting GDP and innovation

Women are underrepresented in internet governance and policymaking roles related to digital transformation

Initiatives focused on digital skills training, infrastructure improvement, and policy changes are needed to increase women’s digital inclusion

Organizations like UN ECA, Internet Society, and GirlHype are implementing programs to promote women’s digital participation

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue and expand programs providing digital skills training to women and girls

Work to improve digital infrastructure and internet access in rural areas

Increase representation of women in internet governance forums and policymaking

Implement the objectives of the Global Digital Compact related to inclusion and closing the digital divide

Support social enterprises as a way to increase women’s economic participation in the digital economy

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively address cultural barriers limiting women’s digital participation in some regions

Specific strategies to make digital devices and internet access more affordable for women

Ways to increase funding and support for women entrepreneurs in digital markets

How to improve online safety and reduce cyberbullying/harassment of women

Suggested Compromises

None identified

In Africa we have 50.5% of the population are women, and when you look at this access to Internet, we have 30% of women connected to Internet, 31% connected compared to 44% men. The gap is high.

speaker

Mactar Seck

reason

This comment provides concrete statistics highlighting the significant gender gap in internet access in Africa, setting the stage for discussing the challenges and importance of addressing this disparity.

impact

It framed the discussion around the urgency of addressing the gender digital divide and led to further exploration of the reasons behind this gap and potential solutions.

In Africa, we have almost 400 million, more than 400 million without any legal form of identity. And among the 400 million, 60% are women. And this 60% doesn’t have any access to any service.

speaker

Mactar Seck

reason

This insight connects the lack of digital access to broader issues of legal identity and access to services, highlighting the compounded challenges faced by women.

impact

It broadened the conversation beyond just internet access to encompass wider societal and structural issues affecting women’s participation in the digital economy.

We have several programs. We have one program called Africa Girl Recording Camp. What is this program? This program targets women and girls aged from 12 to 25 years to give them digital skills on the robotic, on AI, on what call it on 3D printing, on coding.

speaker

Mactar Seck

reason

This comment introduces a concrete initiative aimed at addressing the skills gap for young women and girls in technology fields.

impact

It shifted the discussion from identifying problems to exploring solutions, providing a tangible example of efforts to empower women in the digital space.

According to the 2024 Global Social Enterprises Report, social enterprises created in 2024 200 million jobs. So this is important. It’s a good, important place for us to focus.

speaker

Sarah Armstrong

reason

This insight introduces the potential of social enterprises as a significant area for job creation and economic empowerment for women.

impact

It added a new dimension to the discussion by highlighting a specific sector (social enterprises) as a potential focus area for addressing gender disparities in the digital economy.

We work with boys and girls. If you put a laptop in front of a boy, there’s nothing wrong with that. 90% of the boys, if it breaks, they call other boys and say, it broke down. We put it in front of girls. If it breaks, they are afraid of coming to me and say, I broke the laptop.

speaker

Baratang Miya

reason

This anecdote provides a vivid illustration of how societal norms and expectations can impact girls’ confidence and approach to technology from an early age.

impact

It brought attention to the subtle psychological barriers that can affect women’s participation in technology, beyond just issues of access and skills.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by providing a comprehensive view of the challenges facing women in the digital space, from basic access and identity issues to skills development and psychological barriers. They moved the conversation from identifying problems to exploring solutions, highlighting both large-scale initiatives and subtle societal factors that need to be addressed. The discussion evolved from statistical analysis to concrete programs and personal anecdotes, providing a multi-faceted understanding of the issue and potential paths forward.

How can we address the affordability issue for women in Africa to own mobile phones?

speaker

Mactar Seck

explanation

Affordability was identified as a key barrier to women’s access to digital technology in Africa.

What strategies can be implemented to overcome digital skills and language barriers for women in Africa?

speaker

Mactar Seck

explanation

These were highlighted as significant obstacles to women’s participation in the digital economy.

How can we address the issue of digital identity for women in Africa, given that 60% of those without legal identity are women?

speaker

Mactar Seck

explanation

Lack of digital identity prevents women from accessing various services and opportunities.

What measures can be taken to protect women from cybercrime and encourage them to report such incidents?

speaker

Mactar Seck

explanation

Cybercrime against women was identified as a significant issue, with many victims reluctant to report due to cultural barriers.

How can we educate women on responsible data sharing on social media platforms?

speaker

Mactar Seck

explanation

This was identified as an important area for education and awareness, given women’s high participation rates on social media.

What strategies can be employed to increase women’s involvement in artificial intelligence governance and job creation?

speaker

Mactar Seck

explanation

This was highlighted as an important area for creating opportunities for women in the evolving digital landscape.

How can we improve access to affordable devices and online experiences for women?

speaker

Sarah Armstrong

explanation

This was identified as one of the key areas to focus on to close the gender digital divide.

What steps can be taken to increase the availability of relevant products and tools for women in the digital space?

speaker

Sarah Armstrong

explanation

This was highlighted as another crucial area for addressing the gender digital divide.

How can we enhance safety and security for women in online spaces?

speaker

Sarah Armstrong

explanation

This was identified as a critical factor in encouraging women’s participation in digital markets and governance.

What strategies can be employed to increase women’s representation in policy-making spaces for digital transformation?

speaker

Baratang Miya (reading Toko’s speech)

explanation

The underrepresentation of women in these spaces was identified as perpetuating structural barriers to women’s digital participation.

Summary

This discussion focused on addressing the digital divide and improving connectivity in unconnected communities worldwide, particularly in rural and disaster-prone areas. Toshikazu Sakano presented data showing that while 68% of the global population uses the internet, 2.6 billion people remain offline, with a significant urban-rural disparity. To tackle this issue, Sakano introduced the concepts of LACS (Locally Accessible Cloud System) and X-FACE (Extensible Frontline Augmented Communication Exchanger), portable systems that provide local social networking services without relying on internet connectivity.

Babatunde Ojetunde elaborated on X-FACE, describing it as an AI-enhanced upgrade of LACS that offers advanced communication and information-sharing capabilities. The system is designed to operate as a comprehensive local cloud computing platform, adaptable to various local needs. Ojetunde highlighted potential applications in e-education, community networking, e-health, and disaster response.

Jeffrey Llanto discussed the implementation of these technologies in the Philippines, focusing on the challenges faced by island communities vulnerable to disasters. He emphasized the importance of building resilient communities through IT-enabled communication, particularly in areas with limited internet access and unreliable electricity. Llanto outlined collaborative efforts with international partners to develop and deploy these technologies in response to natural disasters and to improve connectivity in isolated regions.

The discussion underscored the potential of decentralized, portable cloud systems to bridge the digital divide, enhance disaster preparedness, and provide essential digital services to underserved communities. The speakers emphasized the importance of international collaboration and standardization efforts to scale these solutions globally.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The digital divide and lack of internet access for 2.6 billion people globally, especially in rural areas

– Introduction of LACS (Locally Accessible Cloud System) and X-FACE technologies to provide local internet/cloud services in unconnected areas

– Use cases for LACS/X-FACE in disaster response, education, healthcare, and community networking in rural/remote areas

– Global collaboration efforts to implement and standardize these technologies, especially in developing regions

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to present innovative technological solutions to bridge the digital divide and provide internet/cloud services to unconnected communities, particularly in rural areas and during disasters. The speakers shared research, use cases, and plans for global implementation of portable local cloud systems.

Tone:

The tone was primarily informative and optimistic, with speakers enthusiastically presenting their research and technologies as solutions to global connectivity challenges. There was an underlying sense of urgency regarding the need to address the digital divide, balanced with confidence in the potential of the proposed solutions. The tone remained consistent throughout, focused on sharing knowledge and encouraging further collaboration.

Speakers

– Toshikazu Sakano

Role: Session moderator

Expertise: ICT for development, disaster response technologies

– Babatunde Ojetunde

Role: Researcher at ATR Japan

Expertise: X-FACE and LACS technologies

– Jeffery Llanto

Role: Executive Director of Central Visayas Information Sharing Network Foundation (CVISNET)

Expertise: IT-enabled communication, community resilience projects in the Philippines

Additional speakers:

– Unnamed Audience Members

Role: Session attendees asking questions

– Sandra Mahanan (mentioned but did not speak)

Role: Artificial Intelligence Engineer from Unicom Group of Companies, Nigeria

– Chandra Prakash Sharma (mentioned but did not speak)

Role: CEO of Waze Flux from India

– Jimson Olfe (mentioned but did not speak)

Role: Contemporary Consulting from Nigeria

The Digital Divide: Challenges and Innovative Solutions

This discussion focused on addressing the global digital divide and improving connectivity in unconnected communities worldwide, particularly in rural and disaster-prone areas. The session, moderated by Toshikazu Sakano, an expert in ICT for development and disaster response technologies, brought together researchers and practitioners to explore innovative solutions to bridge the connectivity gap.

Digital Divide Overview

Toshikazu Sakano presented key statistics highlighting the extent of the digital divide. He noted that while internet usage has increased globally, significant disparities remain, especially between urban and rural areas. Sakano emphasized that mobile phone ownership varies greatly between high-income and low-income economies, underscoring the challenges in achieving global digital inclusion.

Innovative Technologies: LACS and X-FACE

To address connectivity challenges, Sakano introduced LACS (Locally Accessible Cloud System) and X-FACE (Extensible Frontline Augmented Communication Exchanger). These portable systems provide local social networking services without relying on internet connectivity. Sakano explained, “We pack small server and Wi-Fi access point within a portable case and running it by battery. So this standalone system can deliver in a local area people the social networking services functions.”

Babatunde Ojetunde, a researcher at ATR Japan, elaborated on X-FACE, describing it as an AI-enhanced upgrade of LACS. He detailed its components, including “a portable access point, tablet, terminal and wearable devices.” Ojetunde emphasized X-FACE’s AI-based information processing and edge computing capabilities, as well as its ability to communicate with external systems.

Applications and Use Cases

The speakers highlighted several potential applications for LACS and X-FACE technologies:

1. Disaster Response: Both Sakano and Jeffrey Llanto emphasized the systems’ utility in disaster scenarios, providing crucial communication capabilities when normal infrastructure is disrupted.

2. E-Education: Ojetunde noted the potential for supporting educational initiatives in areas with limited internet access.

3. Community Networking: The systems can facilitate local information sharing and communication within isolated communities.

4. E-Health: Ojetunde suggested applications in healthcare, potentially enabling telemedicine services in remote areas.

5. Building Resilient Communities: Llanto discussed the implementation of these technologies in the Philippines, focusing on the challenges faced by island communities vulnerable to disasters.

CVISNET Foundation and Philippine Context

Jeffrey Llanto, Executive Director of Central Visayas Information Sharing Network Foundation (CVISNET), provided insights into the foundation’s role in implementing connectivity solutions in the Philippines. He highlighted the unique challenges faced by island communities, stating, “Island communities, which the Philippines has around 7,200 islands on our country, it is very vulnerable to disaster, especially typhoons. Island schools have limited or no internet access. The promotion of ecotourism activities and other economic activities in the islands are disrupted.” This context underscored the importance of developing resilient, adaptable solutions for different geographical settings.

Global Collaboration and Future Plans

The speakers emphasized the importance of international collaboration and standardization efforts to scale these solutions globally:

1. Phased Rollout Strategy: Sakano outlined a strategy for gradually expanding coverage areas.

2. Standardization Efforts: Ojetunde mentioned ongoing work with ITU-T to ensure global interoperability of the X-FACE system.

3. International Partnerships: Llanto discussed collaborative efforts with international partners to develop and deploy these technologies in response to natural disasters and to improve connectivity in isolated regions.

4. Ongoing Research: Ojetunde highlighted continuous efforts to integrate emerging technologies into X-FACE and LACS, focusing on enhancing their capabilities and adaptability to various local needs.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the potential of decentralized, portable cloud systems like LACS and X-FACE to bridge the digital divide, enhance disaster preparedness, and provide essential digital services to underserved communities. The speakers demonstrated a high level of consensus on the existence of a significant global digital divide and the potential of these technologies to address connectivity issues in unconnected areas and during disasters. The emphasis on international collaboration and ongoing research suggests a strong foundation for future development and implementation of these solutions globally, offering hope for more inclusive digital access worldwide.

Toshikazu Sakano : I will ask her to present something. And next one is role of artificial intelligence in bridging digital divide and fostering inclusion of unconnected communities from Ms. Sandra Mahanan, Artificial Intelligence Engineer from Unicom Group of Companies, Nigeria. And I’m not confirming the presence of her in this session right now, but is Sandra-san joining this session? So if I confirm the presence, I will ask her to talk a bit about her thoughts. Next one, we’ll introduce of Extensible Frontline Augmented Communication Exchanger, X-FACE, and Locally Accessible Cloud System, LACS, by Dr. Babatunde, Ojetunde, from ATR Japan. And this is followed by the user case, use cases, and potential practical deployments of CrossFace from Mr. Chandra Prakash Sharma, CEO of Waze Flux from India. And this will, followed by the potential use cases of X-FACE in Philippines and Asia Pacific, will be presented by Mr. Jeffrey Luanto, Executive Director of Central Visayas Information Sharing Network Foundation, CVISNET from Philippines. And next one will be potential use cases of X-FACE in Nigeria and Africa. from Dr. Jimson Olfe, Contemporary Consulting from Nigeria. This is an overview of our agenda of the session. And after that, we will discuss the theme and objective of this, to achieve the objective of this session. And in 90 minutes later, we will close, closing remarks by myself before closing the session. Okay, this is the agenda of this session. Okay, let’s go in. So before go into the presentations by panelists, let me introduce brief background of this session and the image I have for accelerating the penetration of unconnected worldwide. So this one slide shows the individuals using the internet worldwide from ITU. In 2024, fully 5.5 billion people are online. That represents 68% of the world population compared with 65% just one year earlier. But 2.6 billion people, one third of the global population are still offline. This is a big issue from achieving SDGs. And next slide. Okay, this one slide is percentage of individuals using the internet in urban and rural areas in 2024, also from ITU. In checking this slide, Globally, 83% of urban dwellers are using the internet in 2024 compared with less than half of the rural population, 48%. So of the 2.6 billion people not using the internet, 1.8 billion live in rural areas, again 800 million in urban areas. So people in rural areas, most people in rural areas, especially developing countries, are not connected. This is the issue we need to tackle using the state-of-the-art of ICT. This one slide gives us a hint to solve the issue. This slide shows the percentage of individuals owing a mobile phone and using the internet in 2024. Looking at this, globally, four out of five individuals 10 years old or older own a mobile phone. Universal ownership, meaning a penetration rate of over 95%, has been reached in high-income economies. This stands in contrast with low-income economies where only 56% of the population age 10 years and over own a mobile phone. Looking at the graph, 68% worldwide population are connected to the internet, but 80% own the mobile phone. What’s the meaning of this gap? Looking at the, for example, Africa, 38% population is connected to the internet, but 66% of population have mobile phone. So, half of mobile phone are not used to connect to the internet. Maybe they use only for telephone. So, here are the hints to fill the gap between connected and unconnected. This is another view of the worldwide. This slide shows the number of disasters by continent and top 10 countries in 2023. And looking at this, most disasters happen in Asia region and Americas and Africa, Europe. And the countries like India, China, Philippines, Indonesia, these countries suffered a lot of disasters. This is also the big issue worldwide. To tackle these issues, we, I, have proposed new concept called LACS or cross-phase concept. So, LACS stands for locally accessible cloud system. It’s a portable server system which comprises of compact server, access point, Wi-Fi access points, battery, and peripheral devices. LACS delivers local social networking service anytime, anywhere, and in any network environment, even in the devastated disaster disruption. X-FACE, that stands for Extensible Frontline Augmented Communication Exchanger, is an updated version of LACS in which AI functionality is included to support first responders in disasters. So the concept is very simple. We pack small server and Wi-Fi access point within a portable case and running it by battery. So this standalone system can deliver in a local area people the social networking services functions. And users use their smartphones to connect to this small box and use it for sharing the information and chatting and communication. These things the users can do. But area is limited in local. So this is a concept of LACS and X-FACE. And very recently, non-terrestrial networks for securing connectivity is becoming popular. So people call NTN, non-terrestrial networks, maybe Starlink is a kind of them, draws a lot of attention as a solution to deliver the Internet connectivity in the unconnected areas. But LACS, X-FACE concept, is considered as a complementary relationship with NTNs because this NTN network is usefully used for connecting to the Internet, but LACS, X-FACE deliver the service to local people. So from the point of view of… internet traffic, you can offload the internet traffic. For the local people, without the traffic congestion, you can smoothly use broadband environment for the local communication. So that is one thing. So this last slide shows the strategy for quick penetration of connected using the local ICT system, like lugs and cross-phase. In the first phase, in the first step, distribution of cross-phase of lugs in an area. Each cross-phase delivers broadband local internet environment, as you can see in the right-hand figure. In the next step, distributed cross-phases in a connected with narrowband wireless network. Coverage area is extended to area-wide. Local communication with broadband and area-wide communication with narrowband are possible. So areas are extended to the narrowband wireless communications. And the third step, at least one cross-phase is connected to the internet with, for example, satellite internet service. The area is covered by global internet. So these steps can help to accelerate the penetration of the internet environment, especially in the rural areas in developing countries. This is my thinking. And I want to discuss this issue and thinking in this session. OK. So I hope this session becomes fruitful thanks to the inputs from the wonderful panelists of their ideas and thoughts. Okay, this is my presentation and let’s go into the panel session. And if there are any panelists, you have something to say? I have a question here. Okay, okay.

Audience: First question is related to the price of the cross-phase equipment.

Toshikazu Sakano : Price?

Audience: Cost. For the cross-phase equipment. It’s the first question. You are talking about development campuses that have some people unconnected to the internet. So we need to have a view about how much does it cost to have this ex-phase equipment for this development campus. This is the first question. The second question is, what are the keys you consider to detect disaster or not? I see the map of disasters here. For Asia, it is three times the disaster in Africa and maybe one and a half times the disaster in Turkey. What do you mean by disaster? Disasters?

Toshikazu Sakano : Okay, thank you very much for your question. Does it work? So I’m trying to show several slides. Okay, there are two questions. One thing is the cost issue of cross-phase. So actually, cross-phase, beforehand, we developed a LACS, locally accessible cloud system. This is a portable, standalone social networking service. And this small box with software. We are now establishing the supply chain, and the price right now is $8,000 USD per one set. That kind of cost image we have.

Audience: So you will be responsible for the communication with the satellite in order to have internet provided for these areas covered by cross-phase equipment? What I say is, this $8,000 USD for one equipment of cross-phase will cover the cost of interconnection with the satellite?

Toshikazu Sakano : Once we start distributing, the sales quantity will increase, and then the cost will decrease. So we are now in the very first phase. So the cost or price itself is a little bit expensive, but once we start distributing, the cost will dramatically reduce, and that accelerates the distribution. So that is one thing. And the second question was the disaster distribution worldwide.

Audience: What do you mean by disaster?

Toshikazu Sakano : Yes. So maybe 5 to 10 kinds of disasters are included in that counting. So in these disasters, I hope our ICT solution can help. Because in most disaster situations, the Internet cannot be used. This is the thing. Okay, thank you very much. Okay. Can you use the mic?

Audience: Can you hear me?

Toshikazu Sakano : I don’t know if you can hear me. Can you hear me now?

Audience: Okay, so my question is for the box, right? Do you have to use it only when there’s a disaster? Or it can work even without a disaster case for remote areas that need Internet connection?

Toshikazu Sakano : Okay, thank you very much for the question. And in the panelists, after my presentation, we’ll give the answers. So please ask the table after the panelist’s presentation. So some panelists are talking about the use cases other than disaster situations. So please wait for a while. Okay, so let’s go into the session. Excuse me, are you a participant? Okay, so you must be…

Audience: I’m just attending.

Toshikazu Sakano : Huh?

Audience: I’m just attending.

Toshikazu Sakano : Ah, I see. Yeah, yeah. I’m just attending, not punished. Okay, I see. Okay, so… It’s Uduma-san, no? And Ms. Sandra Mahana-san, here in this session. Okay, so let’s go to the next agenda. And next presenter is… Dr. Babatunde Ojetunde from ATL Japan. He will talk about cross-phase in more detail. Okay?

Babatunde Ojetunde: Yeah, thank you. Can you hear me? Thank you, Dr. Sakano. I am Ojiatunde Babatunde from HCL. And today I will be talking about the introduction of X-FACE or COSFIS as we used to call it. So first I will talk about the challenges, brief challenges of digital divide in the world. And then I will talk about the concept or the system that we have introduced to address these challenges and show some of the potential use cases in terms of just overview. Then I will go into our collaboration efforts worldwide. So as introduced by Dr. Sakandu, nearly one third of the global population lacks access to basic digital services technology as of 2023. This is often prone to rural area and remote area where there are no internet facilities for people. So there are challenges in terms of educational purposes, healthcare resources through digital means. Also there are limited access to digital services because there is no reliable internet infrastructure in place. So these are the issues that we try to address in our system in HCL. So I will be showing the systems and some of the use cases. So I will go into the details now. Okay, so in 2018, we proposed a locally cloud accessible system, LACS, this system is a decentralized cloud infrastructure that allows people in a local community or local area to be able to communicate with each other. This project was started from MDRVU, then it moved to LACS, and now it’s out on X-FACE, which is an inclusion of artificial intelligence. It’s a portable system that has hardware like a small server, access point, and mobile phone and other devices that can be connected to it. So, we created this first to address disaster issues, but it can also be used for other issues like e-education and so on. So, I’ll move to the next slide. So, what are some of the components of LACS itself? So, LACS is a locally cloud accessible system that provides cloud-like services that is essential for areas that don’t have internet connection. It can serve as a mini cloud hub, it functions as an extendable system without requiring constant internet connectivity. It can also be used to deliver essential cloud services to communities, to local communities through decentralized infrastructure. And as Dr. Sarkarussan shows, you can see the interconnection of different LACS or X-FACE systems. ensure that rural areas can have access to digital systems in a looker way. So this is the prototype of LAT. As you can see, we have a server, a Wi-Fi access point, a battery, a network hub, and it has a case that you can use to put your mobile phone tablet, and also it has this case that is very portable. You can easily move it around. So this is the prototype of a LAT system that we first created to address this issue. Next, I will talk about Extensive Frontline Augmented Communication Exchanger, CROSSFIX or X-FACE. This is an upgrade of LAT to address further issues. We introduced this to be able to include artificial intelligence, which can help in the processing of data faster, and it can allow people to operate it hands-free without having to type. So the AI can accept your speech and transcribe it into text for you, or it can also analyze digital images and so on. So what is X-FACE? X-FACE is an upgrade of LAT that has advanced functions, including artificial intelligence, which enhances communication and information sharing. It operates like a comprehensive local cloud computing platform, and this system is adaptable to meet various local needs and contexts effectively. So this is an image of X-FACE. As you can see, in this picture, there is a cross face with solar panel, so it doesn’t only use a small battery, now we have upgraded it to a solar panel and it can run for more time. So what are the cross face architecture and key features? Cross face consists of a portable access point, tablet, terminal and wearable devices can be used together as we can see at this site, we have tablet, smartphone and other wearable device, this can be used with X-FACE and it also has an AI based information processing and edge computing platform which we built into the cross face core and it can also communicate with other external system like you can use standards to connect to this, so these are the features and the architecture of cross face. So now here is the big image of cross face, as you can see we have a solar panel and the cross face core and everything is packed into the cross face core consists of devices that are packed into this box so that we can move it around easily, so it functions like a local server that acts as a mini cloud hub for data processing and also it has an extended area with communication devices up to one kilometer or more. more if we apply LVWE such as motor, Wi-Fi, AMO and so on, so we can extend the communication to one kilometer or more. Also, there is a local speech recognition technology. What this means is that we don’t have to connect to the internet to be able to use the speech recognition. We have already built it into the box so that it can process your speech locally. And again, there is an edge computing capability that enables time processing data without depending on an external system and this can allow it to function efficiently and manage the data locally efficiently. So what are the other features? It can also support seamless integration with other existing local infrastructure. It can encourage local storage for critical information sharing. It has AI-driven features for optimizing resources and it uses the user-friendly interface that allows people to be able to use the software that is processing the information easily. And also, we look at integrating learning management into it so that it can facilitate e-education. So what are the AI-driven features that we have? There is a natural language processing that supports multilingual communication and also it has advanced image analysis capabilities for communities where that kind of service is needed. It also uses a geographical information system to show where people are in real time and also computer vision automation to assess damaged areas during disaster and it can predict this. and so on. So how can we use cross links for labs to build a bridge-digital divide? One way is to use it for e-education. For example, in the rural area where there’s no internet connection, we can implement labs and use it so that students can have access to educational resources and they can participate in remote learning through the Looker Cloud. The learning management system can enable continuous learning in remote areas and can ensure that digital literacy programs can help our communities where these kinds of skills are needed. So this is an image of the architecture of the labs configuration that we have done in the past using a learning management system that allows students to be able to learn remotely. This will be expanded when we talk about the use cases in the Philippines and other areas. Also, we can use it to build a bridge-digital divide by providing a community network. So in rural areas where there are no internet and network facilities, if we interconnect multiple labs, we can use this to create a community network as Dr. Sakano showed in his picture the other time. So by connecting one lab to another and to another, then we can create a local community where people can communicate with each other using this kind of system. And this configuration can use a mesh network prototype to achieve this. So communities can gain access to digital skills, training, employment, opportunities through the platform. And it can also be used for e-health, so where you can get do telemedicine services. Doctors can connect to the labs in remote areas and can talk to people about their health conditions and so on. So local content creation and sharing can foster cultural preservation in this community. So labs can also be used for other digital services like email, web and e-government functionalities where the local government can post some information to the rural people on an electronic board and they can read it and this can be transcribed into local languages so that they can understand. So how can we use this for bridging digital divides in terms of enhancing community resilience? So for this, as we have heard from Dr. Sakamono, disasters have come to various areas in the world. So labs can be used to provide some services so that people can have access to essential information during this period. So essential communication can remain in this area that is affected by a disaster using X_FACE and labs together so people can still communicate when disasters occur. The system also provides an automated emergency alert system within X-FACE and it can allow first responders to coordinate their activities during crisis situations. Also local data storage ensures that critical information remains during emergencies. Community resilience is another one and also telemedicine services can be provided, healthcare information. It can also be used in agricultural systems also. So the last slide is… So this is one of the tests we have done using it for disaster, for example, when we use X-CrossFace in disaster, we have 3D image that is mapped into X-CrossFace, and when the area is destroyed, we can project back the original image of the area and first responders can use information from the AI to identify if there is a building in the location, how many people are living in that location originally, and how many people have been reported missing or found in that kind of situation. So now I will talk about our global impact effort. Through 2018 to 2021, we have standardized LACS, and currently we are standardizing with ITU-T the X-CrossFace system so that it can have interoperability worldwide and it can be used globally. Other global impacts is our use case in the Philippines. This will be talked more when we are talking about the use case in the Philippines. Recently, we are expanding the LACS and X-CrossFace into other parts of the world, especially Africa, so we had a workshop with people from Nigeria talking about how we can use LACS to bridge digital divide and connect people in Nigeria and other parts of Africa. For future roadmap and collaboration, we are continuing to carry out research to integrate emerging technologies into the X-CrossFace and LACS, and also international partnership being formed to scale the solution globally. So partnership opportunity with NGOs, government agencies, and private sectors are encouraged. These are collaborating partners as of now, so we are open to… in collaboration with other partners from around the world. So thank you, in summary, that’s my presentation. Thank you.

Toshikazu Sakano : Okay, thank you very much, Dr. Babatunde. Okay, so a similar presentation about more realistic use cases will be followed. So I will go into the next panelist and the panelist’s presentation after that, Q&A and discussion session, okay? So we’ll go into the next panelist. So next panelist is, okay, next presentation is from use cases and potential practical deployments of CrossFace. He is CEO of Wizflux Company in India. CP, could you start the presentation by sharing the slide by yourself, okay? He wants to present a presentation. Can you speak now? Okay, so what about sharing the slide? CP, do you share the slides by yourself? Okay, CP can you hear me? So, the system is a bit troubled, so we will go into the next presentation by Jeffrey Rilanto. And during his presentation, the problem will be fixed. So CP, please do your presentation after Jeffrey. Is it okay? Okay. Okay, thank you very much. And Jeffrey, so we will show your presentation slide. So then, please start your presentation. So I believe Jeffrey’s presentation is shared. Slide is changed by the venue, so Jeffrey-san, in your presentation, please say next slide, please, then Tsun-san operate it. Is it okay? Can you hear me, Jeffrey-san? Yes, I can hear you. Okay, so please start your presentation.

Jeffery Llanto: Okay, so from the Philippines, I would like to greet everybody a good afternoon, and I hope everything is doing well there in IGF 2024 in Saudi Arabia. My presentation today is Building Resilient Communities through IT-Enabled Communication with Use Cases of X-Based Projects in the Philippines. I’m Jeffrey Llanto of CVISNET Foundation based here in Cebu, the Philippines. Next slide, please. So just to give a short note, CVISNET Foundation is an organization that started as a project of the government way back in 1990s to provide immediate Internet connection to the entire country. I was working with the government before with the Department of Science and Technology, and we provided the first Internet connection to the government, academe, the private sector, and eventually it evolved into a foundation that becomes an Internet service provider. So CVISNET is empowering communities. We have proven expertise with 25 years experience in partnership with the government and international organizations such as the Advanced Telecommunication Research of Japan under Dr. Toshikazu Sakano, and also our partners from India with CB Sharma. Next slide, please. So we, as mentioned, we have local international partners. These are just what we are working together with. We have here ATR and the other partners that we have around the world. Can we move to the next slide? Next slide, please. Can we move to the next slide, please? I think it’s not moving. Okay. I am sharing my slide right now, so let me please continue. Again, going back to the CPSF Foundation, it’s a project in the government in the Philippines that evolved into a foundation. It’s a self-sustaining foundation that works closely with international organizations like APR and other organizations. Next is the challenges that we experience here in the Philippines, especially during disaster time. What we have is that island communities, which the Philippines has around 7,200 islands on our country, it is very vulnerable to disaster, especially typhoons. Island schools have limited or no internet access. The promotion of ecotourism activities and other economic activities in the islands are disrupted. We have unstable and expensive internet connection and unreliable and limited electricity on these isolated islands. Let me share to you some of the activities that we have been working with different organizations like NTT and ATR Newsflux. So during the time frame of 2011 to our present year right now, we have been working with Japan on research and development effort. Sad to note that everything started with disaster, but we are learning several things of research and development. So everything started during the 2011, the Great Japan Earthquake and also with the 2013 the Typhoon Haiyan or called Yolanda in the Philippines. We conducted several research and development activities with Japan, which is the movable and deployable resource unit in 2014 to 2017. Then the locally accessible cloud system, 2019 to 2023 and right now the extended project back space, but before it’s called the front line.

Agreement Points

Significant global digital divide

Toshikazu Sakano

Babatunde Ojetunde

2.6 billion people worldwide still lack internet access

Nearly one-third of the global population lacks access to basic digital services

Both speakers emphasize the large number of people globally who lack access to internet or digital services, highlighting the persistent digital divide.

LACS/X-Face as solution for areas without connectivity

Toshikazu Sakano

Babatunde Ojetunde

LACS is a portable, standalone system that provides local social networking services

X-Face is an upgraded version of LACS that includes AI functionality

Both speakers present LACS and X-Face as technological solutions to provide internet-like services in areas without connectivity, with X-Face being an enhanced version of LACS.

Usefulness in disaster scenarios

Toshikazu Sakano

Jeffery Llanto

Can be used for disaster response and communication

Used for building resilient communities in disaster-prone areas like the Philippines

Both speakers highlight the potential of LACS/X-Face systems in disaster scenarios, particularly in providing communication capabilities when normal infrastructure is disrupted.

Similar Viewpoints

All three speakers emphasize the importance of global collaboration and standardization efforts to implement and expand the use of LACS/X-Face technologies worldwide.

Toshikazu Sakano

Babatunde Ojetunde

Jeffery Llanto

Strategy for phased rollout to expand coverage areas

Standardization efforts with ITU-T for global interoperability

Partnerships with organizations in various countries, including the Philippines

Unexpected Consensus

Versatility of LACS/X-Face beyond disaster response

Babatunde Ojetunde

Jeffery Llanto

Potential applications in e-education, community networks, and e-health

Can address challenges of island communities with limited internet and electricity

While the initial focus was on disaster response, both speakers highlight the broader applications of the technology in addressing various aspects of the digital divide, including education and healthcare.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers show strong agreement on the existence of a significant global digital divide, the potential of LACS/X-Face technologies to address this issue, and the importance of global collaboration in implementing these solutions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among the speakers, suggesting a unified approach to addressing the digital divide through innovative technologies like LACS and X-Face. This consensus implies a strong foundation for future development and implementation of these technologies globally.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The speakers generally agreed on the challenges of the digital divide and the potential of LACS and X-Face technologies to address these issues.

difference_level

Low level of disagreement. The speakers presented complementary information and perspectives, focusing on different aspects of the same overall goal of bridging the digital divide.

Partial Agreements

Similar Viewpoints

All three speakers emphasize the importance of global collaboration and standardization efforts to implement and expand the use of LACS/X-Face technologies worldwide.

Toshikazu Sakano

Babatunde Ojetunde

Jeffery Llanto

Strategy for phased rollout to expand coverage areas

Standardization efforts with ITU-T for global interoperability

Partnerships with organizations in various countries, including the Philippines

Key Takeaways

A significant digital divide exists globally, with 2.6 billion people still lacking internet access, particularly in rural areas

LACS and X-Face technologies offer portable, standalone systems to provide local cloud-like services and communication in areas without reliable internet

These technologies have potential applications in disaster response, e-education, community networks, and e-health

Global collaboration and standardization efforts are underway to implement these solutions in various countries

Resolutions and Action Items

Ongoing standardization of X-Face system with ITU-T for global interoperability

Expansion of LACS and X-Face implementations into Africa, particularly Nigeria

Continued research to integrate emerging technologies into X-Face and LACS

Unresolved Issues

Specific strategies for reducing the cost of X-Face equipment as production scales up

Detailed plans for integrating X-Face with existing infrastructure in different countries

Methods for ensuring long-term sustainability of X-Face implementations in rural areas

Suggested Compromises

Using X-Face as a complementary solution alongside non-terrestrial networks (NTNs) to balance local and global connectivity needs

Globally, four out of five individuals 10 years old or older own a mobile phone. Universal ownership, meaning a penetration rate of over 95%, has been reached in high-income economies. This stands in contrast with low-income economies where only 56% of the population age 10 years and over own a mobile phone.

speaker

Toshikazu Sakano

reason

This comment provides crucial data on mobile phone ownership, highlighting the disparity between high-income and low-income economies. It’s insightful because it sets the stage for discussing potential solutions to bridge the digital divide.

impact

This observation led to a deeper discussion about leveraging existing mobile phone infrastructure to increase internet connectivity in underserved areas.

We pack small server and Wi-Fi access point within a portable case and running it by battery. So this standalone system can deliver in a local area people the social networking services functions. And users use their smartphones to connect to this small box and use it for sharing the information and chatting and communication.

speaker

Toshikazu Sakano

reason

This comment introduces the innovative concept of LACS and X-FACE, presenting a practical solution to provide local internet services in areas with limited connectivity.

impact

It shifted the conversation from identifying problems to discussing concrete solutions, sparking interest in the technical details and potential applications of this technology.

X-face consists of a portable access point, tablet, terminal and wearable devices can be used together as we can see at this site, we have tablet, smartphone and other wearable device, this can be used with X-Face and it also has an AI based information processing and edge computing platform which we built into the cross face core and it can also communicate with other external system like you can use standards to connect to this

speaker

Babatunde Ojetunde

reason

This comment provides a detailed explanation of the X-FACE system, highlighting its versatility and advanced features like AI-based processing and edge computing.

impact

It deepened the technical discussion and opened up conversations about various potential applications of the technology in different scenarios.

Island communities, which the Philippines has around 7,200 islands on our country, it is very vulnerable to disaster, especially typhoons. Island schools have limited or no internet access. The promotion of ecotourism activities and other economic activities in the islands are disrupted.

speaker

Jeffery Llanto

reason

This comment provides a real-world context for the challenges faced in implementing internet connectivity, particularly in a geographically diverse country prone to natural disasters.

impact

It grounded the discussion in practical realities and highlighted the importance of developing resilient, adaptable solutions for different geographical contexts.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively moving from identifying global connectivity challenges to proposing and explaining innovative technological solutions. The conversation evolved from statistical analysis of the digital divide to detailed explanations of new technologies like LACS and X-FACE, and finally to real-world applications and challenges in specific contexts like the Philippines. This progression allowed for a comprehensive exploration of both the problem and potential solutions, while also highlighting the complexity of implementing these solutions in diverse geographical and economic settings.

What is the cost of the X-Face equipment?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

Understanding the cost is important for assessing the feasibility of deploying X-Face in developing areas with limited resources.

What criteria are used to define and classify disasters in the global disaster map?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

Clarifying the definition of disasters is crucial for accurately assessing the need for and potential impact of X-Face in different regions.

Can X-Face be used in non-disaster situations for providing internet connectivity in remote areas?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

Understanding the full range of applications for X-Face is important for maximizing its potential impact on bridging the digital divide.

How can X-Face be integrated with existing local infrastructure?

speaker

Babatunde Ojetunde

explanation

Exploring integration possibilities is crucial for ensuring X-Face can be effectively deployed in various contexts.

What are the potential applications of X-Face for e-education, e-health, and e-government services?

speaker

Babatunde Ojetunde

explanation

Investigating these applications is important for understanding how X-Face can address various aspects of the digital divide.

How can partnerships with NGOs, government agencies, and private sectors be formed to scale X-Face globally?

speaker

Babatunde Ojetunde

explanation

Exploring partnership opportunities is crucial for the widespread adoption and impact of X-Face.

Summary

This session focused on addressing digital divides and promoting equitable access to computing resources, particularly in developing countries and marginalized communities. Participants discussed various challenges, including inadequate infrastructure, high internet costs, and lack of digital literacy, especially in rural areas and among women. They emphasized the need for multilingual approaches to digital education and the importance of localizing development efforts.

Speakers highlighted the role of collaboration between governments, private sectors, and civil society in bridging these gaps. They stressed the importance of creating favorable policies to attract investment in digital infrastructure and promote cross-border data exchange. The discussion also touched on the potential of emerging technologies like AI and blockchain, while acknowledging the need to prioritize basic digital literacy for many communities.

Capacity building emerged as a crucial theme, with participants emphasizing the need to categorize and tailor digital literacy efforts to different skill levels. The importance of mentorship and continuous learning was highlighted, along with the potential of community-driven initiatives like community networks. Speakers also discussed the ethical considerations of technology use and the need for people-centered approaches.

The session concluded with participants envisioning a fully digital world characterized by connectivity, empowerment, accessibility, and shared computational resources that uplift all rather than deepen inequalities. Overall, the discussion underscored the complex challenges in achieving digital equity and the multifaceted approaches required to address them.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Digital divide and inequalities in access to technology, especially in developing countries and rural areas

– Need for digital literacy and capacity building initiatives, tailored to different levels

– Importance of infrastructure development and affordable connectivity

– Multi-stakeholder collaboration and policy frameworks to support digital inclusion

– Localization of digital solutions and content to reach underserved communities

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore ways to bridge the digital divide and ensure more equitable access to computing resources and digital technologies, particularly for developing countries and marginalized communities.

The tone of the discussion was passionate and solutions-oriented. Participants shared personal experiences and perspectives from their countries, creating an atmosphere of mutual learning. The tone became increasingly action-oriented as speakers proposed concrete ideas for addressing challenges. There was a sense of urgency but also optimism about the potential for positive change through collaboration and targeted efforts.

Speakers

– MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Coordinator for the youth IGF in Tanzania, ITU generation connect youth envoy

– NOAH ABDELBAKI: Instructor in the PAYAIG in the Arabic cohort, Engineer from Egypt

– ATANAS BAIZIRA: Software engineer, Coordinator for the youth IGF in the Democratic Republic of Congo

– CHRIS ODU: From Nigeria

– MATILDA MOSES-MASHAURI: African youth ambassador in Internet Governance, Binti Digitale ambassador from Tanzania

– DR. MONOJIT: Researcher at internet governance, works at a think tank of the government of India

Additional speakers:

– OSEY KEGHYA: From Ghana

– KENDI KOSA: From Mozambique

– SOBY ABRAHAM FIFI:

– RAZEN ZAKARIA: Abayag ambassador from Egypt

– RAPID SUN: From Cambodia

– GRACE: From Cameroon

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Bridging the Digital Divide

This session brought together a diverse group of speakers from various countries to address the pressing issue of digital divides and promote equitable access to computing resources, with a particular focus on developing countries and marginalized communities.

Introduction of Speakers and Their Backgrounds

The discussion featured speakers from different regions, including:

– Atanas Baizira from Uganda

– Millenium Anthony from Nigeria

– Matilda Moses-Mashauri from Tanzania

– Soby Abraham Fifi from Cameroon

– Kendi Kosa from Kenya

– Dr. Monojit from India

– Chris Odu from Nigeria

– Noah Abdelbaki from Egypt

– Osey Keghya from Cameroon

Each speaker brought unique perspectives based on their experiences in their respective countries.

Recognizing the Digital Divide

Chris Odu emphasized the importance of first identifying and accepting the problem of the digital divide before seeking solutions. This set the tone for a frank discussion about the challenges faced in different regions.

Key Challenges in Digital Access and Literacy

The speakers identified several significant challenges hindering digital inclusion:

1. Infrastructure and Connectivity: Atanas Baizira highlighted the lack of digital infrastructure in rural areas, while Millenium Anthony pointed out the high cost of internet access as a major barrier.

2. Gender Inequality: Matilda Moses-Mashauri shared her personal experiences from rural Tanzania, emphasizing the disparity in access to digital resources between genders. She underscored the need for targeted efforts to ensure equal opportunities for girls and boys.

3. Language Barriers: Atanas Baizira noted that language differences pose a significant obstacle in accessing digital content and education.

4. Basic Digital Literacy: Soby Abraham Fifi stressed the widespread lack of basic digital literacy skills, particularly in underserved communities.

Strategies for Bridging the Digital Divide

The discussion yielded several proposed strategies to address these challenges:

1. Multilingual Approaches: Atanas Baizira advocated for digital literacy training in local languages to make content more accessible and understandable. He highlighted the PAYAIG program’s approach to providing training in multiple languages.

2. Public-Private Partnerships: Kendi Kosa suggested leveraging partnerships between the public and private sectors to develop digital infrastructure.

3. Localized Capacity Building: Matilda Moses-Mashauri emphasized the importance of tailoring capacity building efforts to local needs and contexts, drawing from her experiences in Tanzania.

4. Cross-Border Collaboration: Dr. Monojit proposed increased collaboration between countries to share best practices in digital development.

5. Mentorship Programs: Chris Odu highlighted the value of mentorship and guidance for technology learners. He also suggested utilizing resources like ITU Academy and YouTube for learning about technology.

Role of Different Stakeholders

The speakers agreed on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration but had varying emphases on the roles of different actors:

1. Government: Chris Odu stressed the government’s role in creating favorable policies to support digital inclusion.

2. Private Sector: Noah Abdelbaki focused on the need for private sector investment in digital infrastructure.

3. Civil Society: Millenium Anthony highlighted the crucial role of civil society in grassroots digital literacy efforts.

4. Youth: Osey Keghya emphasized the importance of youth involvement in shaping digital policies and the need for continuous learning and innovation in addressing digital divide issues.

Emerging Technologies and Developing Countries

The discussion also touched on the potential and challenges of emerging technologies:

1. Data Exchange Frameworks: Noah Abdelbaki called for the development of policies to support data exchange between countries.

2. AI and E-commerce: Chris Odu and Atanas Baizira discussed the potential of AI and e-commerce for development, while also acknowledging the need for ethical considerations in technology use.

3. Mobile Banking: Atanas Baizira highlighted opportunities for innovation in mobile banking.

4. Adoption Challenges: Rapid Sun raised questions about the difficulties in adopting advanced technologies like AI without basic infrastructure in place.

Ethical Considerations and People-Centered Technologies

Atanas Baizira emphasized the importance of ethical use of technology and the need for people-centered technologies that address local needs and contexts.

Audience Questions and Concerns

The discussion included questions from the audience:

1. Grace from Cameroon asked about how to start learning about technology.

2. Razen Zakaria inquired about internet justice and equality in countries affected by war.

3. Rapid Sun questioned AI infrastructure development and collaboration between developing countries.

Visions for a Fully Digital World

The session concluded with each panelist sharing their vision of a fully digital world, emphasizing themes of inclusivity, equal access, and the transformative power of technology for development.

In conclusion, this discussion highlighted the complex challenges in achieving digital equity and the multifaceted approaches required to address them. The speakers emphasized the need for collaborative, localized, and culturally sensitive strategies to bridge the digital divide and ensure that the benefits of digital technologies are accessible to all.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: So, welcome to the session, to our day zero session on sharing and exchanging compute new digital divisions. My name is Millennium Anthony. I am from Tanzania. I am the coordinator for the youth IGF in Tanzania, and I’m also an ITU generation connect youth envoy, and today I’m going to be moderating this amazing session. So I have here with me joined the three speakers and the others who are going to be joining us soon. But before we move further in our discussion, I would like to just give a concept of whatever that we’re going to be discussing for the next one hour. As we all know that we have all this, the new technologies like AI, all this, the robotics and all that, so, and then we also know that there’s this one group that is able to access all these tools easy, but then considering countries like the global south countries, they’re still having difficulties to get connected, to stay online. And this has been contributed by different factors. For example, the high cost of the internet bundles, people can’t access. Some other group, they can’t access the tools, let’s say, have access to computers or mobile phones and all that. So today we are going to have a discussion with my panelists here. We’re going to explore different aspects on how we can ensure, like, people from the global south, but also this other larger group that is left can become online, despite that we have all these emerging technologies that are really coming up high, right? Yeah. So before I go in the discussion, I would like to welcome my speakers. So they’re going to introduce themselves and then I can ask them the questions and then each one of them can respond. So I’ll start with you, Noah.

NOAH ABDELBAKI: Thank you, Millennium. So hi, everyone. Good morning. My name is Noah Abdelbaki. I’m from Egypt and I’m an instructor in the PAYAIG in the Arabic cohort. I’m an engineer by profession. Thank you.

ATANAS BAIZIRA: Thank you so much. Good morning, everyone. I’m Atanas Baizira from the Democratic Republic of Congo. I’m a software engineer by profession and I’m the coordinator for the youth IGF in the DRC. And I’m very happy to be here.

MATILDA MOSES-MASHAURI: Hello. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Matilda Moses-Mashauri from Tanzania. I’m also an African youth ambassador in Internet Governance. I’m a Binti Digitale ambassador. And it’s such a very amazing and a great chance to be here in this very productive and interactive session. Looking forward to collaboration in case of any questions. ideas, we get to talk with others. It’s a very informative session and I can’t wait to get into it. Thank you very much.

CHRIS ODU: Hello, good morning ladies and gentleman, my name is Chris Odu from Nigeria. Sorry I just walked in, we are trying to just get ourselves together. We are looking forward to this session, thank you very much.

DR. MONOJIT: Hi, my name is Monojit, I am a researcher at internet governance, it is pleasure to be here and I am looking forward to this session. Thank you.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. So I’m going to be asking questions to my speakers in no particular order. Like I’ll just ask in any order, so just be ready to contribute, yeah? And so I’m gonna start with, first we need to explore some of the challenges. So I’ll start with you, Matilda. In your experience, what are the most significant invisible barriers that contribute to compete disparities in the region, especially that you’re from the African region, and how do you see they’re going to be addressed in the near future?

MATILDA MOSES-MASHAURI: Thank you very much, Millennium, for a very insightful question. The challenges are so many, compared, I mean, especially the fact that I’m working very closely with the women and young girls in my country. And I can tell you, I have been, I did these projects not only in the city, but I did go deep, I did the projects in Kigoma, so I was able to see the challenges. I myself was affected, there’s so many challenges in the young girls, and you can see the disparities are a lot. So if you told me, as a young girl, being born as a girl in Africa, in the rural area, that’s a challenge already, you know? And then trying to engage that young girl into the digital world, that’s also another challenge, because we do not have those digital infrastructures, and I’m speaking facts from my country, because I do this, and I did this, you know? So the challenges are so many for young girls. And if you ask me about what we can do, Millennium, to, like, what we can do to overcome the challenges, or to, there’s so much we can do for a young girl. First of all, we do need this gender equity into, like, the proper gender equity into the digital literacy. Whatever the young boy can access should be exactly what also a young girl can access. Same. But then in Africa, for example, I’m telling you, in Kigoma, I went, I met a dropout kid, a 16 years old dropout kid, with two babies. But then if you ask her routine when she was going to school, she has to wake up in the morning, do the home chores, and then go to classes, come back early, make lunch, because she also has kids, go back to class again, come back again. Earlier, later evening. Do the chores again, you know, they didn’t have it. But what’s what about the boy child? He wakes up in the morning goes to school comes back goes to play games or football whatever so you can already see so first we need to treat the same same exact opportunity than the chances that the Young boy gets or that a boy gets should be exactly what I should get what you should get But a younger in Kigoma should get but in my country start to be honest It’s really difficult. The digital infrastructure is poor, you know, the digital infrastructure is poor We do not have this digital infrastructures. We go even if we go we’re gonna go to do with this The session like this the programs, you know, it’s not even about teaching It’s about trying to engage them into this tech technical world people are very they have amazing and confident works People want to be like they have vision But then they do not know even how to dream about those dreams because how can they dream of something that they do not know? So they do not know what is technology. They do not even know what is digital digital interest digital world Never saving a smartphone in their lives Then how am I supposed to teach that young girl that you know what you can be a software developer you can be or a Graphic designer you can be a whatever an engineer if so, there’s so many things to to to there’s so many things you have to do For Tanzania for Tanzania. There’s so much that we have to do so much From the government level from the from the government level from the school from the curriculum itself There’s so many cultures we have to unlearn we have this this this this this this this this this this this this this Cultures that affect us young girls from different. I’m also coming from from a lake zone tribe So I understand but thanks to you know for me It’s different now because at least my parents at least I was able to go to good schools at least I was able to live In the city so for me you can’t sell much, but what about that person who cannot go to those good schools? What about that person whose parents cannot even afford to take them to good schools? You know so it’s a it’s very complicated millennia, but we are trying the heading there So thank you very much in there, and I really love whatever involves young girls and women. Thank you Wow

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Thank you so much for telling that was impressive for me Especially that you talked about gender inequality in terms of accessing all of these resources when it comes to, like, young women and, like, young boys. So there’s that inequality that currently exists. And picking up from the same discussion, I’ll come to you, Noah. Now we have talked about all this marginalized group. How do you think we can ensure that the marginalized communities have access in shaping the voices of, like, policies and solutions to reduce these disparities?

NOAH ABDELBAKI: Yeah, thank you, Millennium. So I guess that everyone needs to have a say in drafting these policies because we need to attract investors to invest in our, like, countries. Africa and the Middle East are very central in the world, but we, like, big tech companies are not heavily investing in this area at all. We don’t have, like, big data centers in our region that would, like, provide many computation resources and enough computation resources for us to use the technology and also design technology that is suitable for us as Africans, as Middle Easterns, as people from the global south. But we don’t have enough resources to do this. So when drafting the policies, we need to, like, ensure having, like, of course, first it needs to be we need to adopt a multi-stakeholder approach, invite everyone to the table to have a say in this and drafting the frameworks. We need to ensure having, like, proper infrastructure to support, like, technology that is growing each and every day. Because we, for example, in Egypt, we still don’t have the LTE or 5G network. We just got the license. I’m sure it’s the same situation most of the African countries. So we need to have the proper infrastructure to support the tech that is that we are using and that is growing each and every day. We are in the age of data and AI. So we need to support this. Also I’m calling all the governments to draft the policies to support the data exchange between the countries and also the data production laws because this will attract tech companies, cloud service providers, internet service providers to invest in our countries. And this will affect our GDP in a positive way and will also attract other investors and we will retain the talent in our countries instead because we are losing our talents. They are leaving our countries. They’re looking for jobs elsewhere, including women. It’s not only the male talents we’re losing. So I need to I hope we can create a better future by having the proper data frameworks and policies to support our future of computation.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: All right. Thank you so much, Noah. So investing and allowing proper policies on the cross-border data transfer. So we have the marginalized group, Atenas. So we have been discussing about digital literacy and all that, especially that you come from PAYAIG where we impact the community with the internet governance knowledge. What would be your contribution on how we can incorporate digital literacy into formal and informal education so that we may ensure that we have sustainable benefits for everyone?

ATANAS BAIZIRA: Thank you so much, very good question and just that you mentioned it’s very important to really rethink the way we see digital literacy not only in the formal way like the normal curriculum when it comes to high school, university and postgraduate but it’s also in the informal way how we can build capacity of the people who are already on ground. Sometimes we talk about marginalized communities, they are not only the youth, they are not only in rural areas, sometimes they are also the old generations that they are already in business for years but then digital technologies are coming to, you know, interfere with the way they deal with business and now they are very marginalized. They are even, when it comes to cyber security questions, they are really very easy to get in this sense so that we also need to rethink literacy in a sense that we do not only reach the people who are at school but also the people who are already working so we give them enough capacity to navigate the digital world very well. So one of the things we are doing is an initiative that came out of Africans to build capacity of African people around internet governance and what is interesting about this program is that the language barrier is something in all the regions we have a lot of languages but then most of the technologies they come with predestination of languages they come with and also discussions around those technologies also will be around most of them happening in English, the IGF one of the good cases. So what we did with PAYAIG is train people in languages that are very close to them, so they will understand very well the stakes of the digital space, they will understand the stakes of internet governance in languages that are very close to them. So we did, we are doing trainings in five languages which include Arabic, Portuguese, French, English and Swahili. So what is original in this program is now we have African languages that are incorporated in this digital literacy initiative and people, from the feedback we are getting, you see that after the training, the people have been trained, are ready to enter the ecosystem, they’re already doing great. If the entrepreneurs you see now, they’re leveraging on the digital technologies because they are more aware of the opportunities that are around. So I think it’s very important to start investing in digital literacy. We don’t have to wait for when everything will be alright because it takes time to make sure everything is aligned, but we start from where we are. Even on your personal capacity, you can start by making sure you preach the gospel of the literacy of the digital space around you. Make sure when you are with people, some of us have knowledge about some of these cases we are having. You can use smartphones, you can use now AI, you can use quantum technologies are coming and they will not wait for when we are ready for them to develop. So they are already developing. So we need to start from where we are, starting to, you know, balance between our other priorities. that are different from regions to region, but also getting into the space, taking enough knowledge so that we can keep the pace and go towards the digital future that we all want. Back to you, Millennium, thank you.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Thank you so much, Adonis. That was very, I liked the multilingualism part, especially considering countries like, let’s say countries like my country, like Tanzania, we have 121 languages. So you can imagine we have some communities, our national language is Swahili, but then we have these other groups that don’t even speak Swahili. So you can imagine we have like all these new technologies like AI, then we want to teach, let’s say in English, people don’t even understand our own national language, how can you teach in English? So it’s really important when we’re doing all this digital literacy thing, the trainings, we do it in the language that our people understand so that we can bring everyone on board. So that’s how we ensure that nobody is left behind. So I’ll come to you, Dr. Monojit. So we have seen, we have talked about all this AI, the quantum computing, they’re really transforming the world and I really like it, but then we have these developing countries, like our countries, like the global south countries that we’re still not to the point that we are benefiting from all these technologies enough. So what do you see, we can, like how do you see we can ensure that all these innovations, like the AI, these all new technologies, are being, what do you say, like are helping or are succeeding in all these developing countries? How can we ensure that?

DR. MONOJIT: Yeah, you can hear me now? I’m so sorry. Technological disadvantage, you rely too much, you know, considering that it is on. Okay, thank you, Milena, so much. But firstly, I’d like to congratulate or thank the first speaker. I’m sorry about your name. But you see the change that you have brought. If you see in front, you’ll see a lot of women participants or representative, probably this is the hard effort that you guys have been doing for the past few years. You see the representation, they’re mostly equally in number or women to be more. Our moderator also has been a gracious lady who is leading the and spearheading. So continuing to the fact that, you know, the point which you have highlighted and my next female speaker, that on technological sharing, you know, I come from India and we are certainly one of the leading countries in terms of technology, if you see the digital payments and such. There are a few initiatives that I’ll tell you a little about just the background that I was previously into academia. I was a student, I did my PhD in Internet Governance. Then I switched to media and now I am in a very prestigious think tank of the government of India. Our main motto is that to flourish or ensure that the language is never a barrier, which again is a very key point highlighted by my panelists. So we have developed, you know, the government of India at large has developed a translation mechanism or a tool called Anuvadhini AI that ensures that we are outreaching the knowledge that we have into all 22 official languages of the country. So alongside this, what we have tried to ensure, and I’m just giving you this fact because what I wish here is that let this be an opportunity for collaboration, you are particularly, you all here present here, also in the audience. You know, you form a, not just for today, but in future also you’ll be a power that represents the country in any society, whether it is academia or such. So that from here, when we go back, we can explore possible collaboration. Now that I’m part of the government of India’s think tank, if at all I don’t represent, you know, in government capacity, but I’m sure the people of India and the government at large will be definitely very happy, you know, to share this knowledge. Now you see, recently what the government has done is ensuring buying or taking the subscription of all leading journals that are available globally and making it a repository. so that all the students from far-flung areas and also from the middle, who cannot get access by paying in their capacity, can get access to their depository, so that they can have access to the knowledge, which is a kind of fundamental right, that I can say. So this sort of, I am very much sure that collaborating with African Union and also African at large, or other countries, like my colleague is from Middle East, or representing the voice of Middle East, I can say, so we can definitely collaborate on that, because this session at large, we talk sharing and exchanging compute, so we can always focus on these areas, that we can, AI, whether it is AI, whether it is sharing of the resources, I think we can certainly collaborate, and India being a rich power in this aspect at least, we can explore collaborations, and I don’t see there is any hindrance to it, geopolitically, whatever the concepts may are, but ideas and innovations like this always are welcomed across the globe. So with this, I hand it over to Milenia once again, thank you.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Thank you so much, doctor. You have spoken about collaboration, in terms of like, the government and stuff, now I want to come to you, Chris. Like, Dr. Monojit has spoke about the importance of collaboration, now we have, let’s say considering we have different stakeholders, let’s say in the internet governance space, we have the governments, we have the technical communities, we have the civil societies, so how can we ensure, like, this multi-stakeholder we have, let’s say all this, the government and all that, the relationship between them is equitable, or is like, good, so that we may ensure we are driving change in all these developing countries, or just the world at large. Like, how can we ensure a good collaboration between the multi-stakeholders?

CHRIS ODU: Okay, so. Okay, give me that. Okay, thank you very much. So good morning once again. Thank you very much for the question. And before I just go ahead, I think I would like to appreciate this balancing, gender balancing. I think it’s territory, so we’re good. Good, so you talked about collaboration and doctor here, first of all, kicked off the pace. The first thing we need to do first is you need to identify do we have, have we accepted we have a problem? That’s the first thing. For instance, you cannot just, even if a doctor is trying to treat you, the patient must first agree that he or she is sick before he can actually receive treatment. So first of all, one of the things we are actually having, the issues we have is that we think, we know we have a problem, we know that we have a problem, but have we, all of us, all the various stakeholders, have we accepted and agreed that we need to solve that problem? Because for me to be able to work with you, we must actually agree. One of us must actually agree to work together. One of the key things I see, or I feel, because I’m going to speak in, is this better? Can you hear me? You can? I can’t, yeah. Please, let’s try to fix this because my moderator is not hearing me, so I need her to hear me. Okay. You can hear me now, better, okay. So I think sometimes, you know, technology just fails us, but we’re good now. So for me to be able to work with you, first of all, we must agree on something. There must be a mutual benefit between both of us. And the truth is, the government can’t do it all alone. We need partnerships. But rather, but the thing is, the government first must lay the foundation. And what’s the foundation? A good policy. Good, you cannot have a poor policy and you expect a private sector to come in. and do any collaboration with you. It’s not gonna work because, for instance, if I’m coming from the private sector, I want to know what’s in for me. That’s the thing, what’s in for me. So you need to have favorable policies for us to be able to work together in harmony. And I would just like to touch on something which is very key for me, which is capacity building. I think we’re actually lacking a lot in capacity building. And when I’m speaking, I’m speaking from my own primary constituency, which is Africa, you understand? We do have a lot of issues when it comes to capacity building. I’ll give you an instance. We’re talking about digital literacies, digital technologies. I’ll use blockchain as an example, okay? We’re in a time where blockchain is actually a thing. You go everywhere, you hear blockchain, blockchain, blockchain. But if you go back to Africa, a lot of people still do not understand what blockchain is you get. So it’s something, for instance, but technology is supposed to, we’re supposed to be speaking, when you’re talking about technology, we’re supposed to be speaking the same language. If I come here, even if you’re speaking Arabic, I’m speaking English, but we’re here to speak technology. So we should be able to communicate on something. And we should be able to speak on something. Something must connect us. And what’s that connection? Technology. So we need to actually build our capacity wherever you’re coming from. We must be able to speak the same language, which is technology. And that’s why I said it’s good, we now use this platform, and go back to our various regions, and ask that, how can I be a change? The change must start with each and every one of us. What am I going to do? Am I going to mentor? Am I going to teach? Am I going to guide? Well, how do I play my own part? Because as a stakeholder, all of us have a role to play. The government, the private sector, the business people, everybody has a role to play. So we shouldn’t just go back and say, we leave it for the government, or we leave it for this sector, no. Each and every one of us, once we leave this place, we should go with a mindset of. What’s that little thing I can do and contribute to my own constituency? How am I going to contribute and give my own quarter? For instance, I do a lot of mentoring. I do a lot of mentoring on digital literacy. Okay, trying to see how, because most times when we speak, we’re just speaking to those in the urban areas. How about the rural areas? That’s those at the bottom of the ladder. How are we going to bring them into these conversations? We’re talking about technology, technology, technology, but someone in a rural village, a remote village, does not really understand this technology. How can we bring them on board? So that’s actually part of collaboration. How can we collaborate and make sure that this group of people are not left behind? So my take is we should always champion change wherever we go. We should be the contributors too. Thank you.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Wow, thank you so much, Chris. I was about to chip in a question when you were speaking, but then in the end, you ended up answering it. My moderator must hear me. Okay, so now, I think I want to move the direction to the floor. Now, I want, if you guys want to share something, especially in your specific countries, something that you have seen, the challenges that you have seen, or if it’s something that you have seen that is working in your country in terms of bridging this whole digital divide. So I want to open the floor if you want to share something like that. Yeah, I’ll start with you, Keghya.

OSEY KEGHYA: Hello. I hope I’m audible enough. Yes. Okay, thank you very much. My name is Osei Keghya from Ghana. A lot has been shared, and thanks to you for the insightful conversation. But my concern is that, I ask, who are we benchmarking? We are talking about sharing and exchanging. computing, new digital divisions. Every now and then, I know people are from Africa, Middle East, Europe, Americas. There are new challenges which are evolving every now and then. But who are we benchmarking? What way are we trying to develop digital literacy? These are the questions, the nuances we should look at. So, Chris also did talk about mentoring, which is very, very good. But one thing I have noticed in our countries, specific countries, is that it has become too robotic and mechanistic that it stifles innovation. So, if I’m imparting young people, in terms of mentorship, go my way, go this way. So, it’s no ground for innovation, birth my way. But we need to move from that area and see it as a wrestle and a dance, where there is information sharing, where we can continually innovate. And the one last thing is continuous learning. In this whole bridging the divide, trying to introduce computation and all, there must be continuous learning. And in this continuous learning, we talk of multi-stakeholder approach, which is very good. By government’s hold and a balance of power, are they ready to juggle with the people, private sector, and civil society. Our side is Bravity. Thank you very much. Wow, thank you so much, Keghya.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Is there? Yes, please.

KENDI KOSA: I don’t know if you can hear me. Yeah. My name is Kendi Kosa. I’m from Mozambique. I have some ideas here about the infrastructure development. Since we are, we’ve been facing challenges in building resilient and accessible broadband infrastructure and underserved and rural communities, as Matilde mentioned. To address these issues through public-private partnerships and innovation solutions, I brought here some ideas about infrastructure for telecommunications. I believe that an effective approach to ensure that these areas without broadband infrastructure can connect through the infrastructure sharing model, which is a strategy that involves cooperation among different telecommunications operators to use the same infrastructure such as towers, cables and fiber optic networks. I believe that for that, we must approach something for Africa, which is the cost reductions for the Internet. We have also accelerated the access for it and minimized the environment impact. Plus we have an improvement for service quality. Also for the implementation of these ideas, I think about a favorable regulation, which is necessary to have a regulatory framework that encourages infrastructure sharing. That would be clear to the guidelines to protect competition and consumer rights. We also need a partnership agreement, government involvement in this for the infrastructure part, and plus innovative business models. I believe in that. So thank you.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Wow. Thank you so much. I really like the discussion that is going on here, especially, okay, I’ll come back to you one time, and especially I liked the telecommunication. I think for my country, I think I’ll say. the telecommunication companies, they haven’t been a very good collaboration between the telecom companies. At least every telecom company is trying, they’re competing, you know? So there is no, what do you say, cooperative effort that is done to ensure like, okay, our goal is just one. All of us want to bridge this divide, we want to provide service to our people, but then it’s just like rival, who will reach there first? But then if we do it all together, I think we’ll reach far. And, wait, yes, welcome.

SOBY ABRAHAM FIFI: Okay, all right, thank you. My name is Soby Abraham Fifi. Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay, all right. So, listening to some of the conversations that go on, I will focus more on the literacy aspect and capacity aspect on that. Chris was mentioning that at least we have to do some capacity, literacy models aspect. But I have two questions in this one. What actions are we taking? And which categories can we sort it out? The reason why I’m saying is that sometimes, let’s say, the people in this room may understand the concept of internet governance. So when we come, we discuss about emerging technologies, advancing technology, you all mentioned blockchain and other stuff, right? It’s a conversation on different categories. But when we come to the lower aspects of the category we’re gonna look about digital literacy, that’s where we see the gap, because people can come and discuss about AI, digital infrastructure, emerging technologies, blockchain, but most of those people who are listening to that conversation, some people don’t even understand basic computer literacy, how to even operate basic tools within the IT aspect. So come to think of. the AI. So what I want us to do is that, in terms of conversation among youth, we can close the gap by categorizing and prioritizing where we need to focus on. So there might be a group that we can group them, okay people who have advanced the stage of using basic technology tools, this conversation we can focus on them. Then we the youth can start developing models that is tailored to digital literacy training. How to even use basic things, because even some people don’t even know how to use Zoom. So if we are having a conversation on closing the digital gap, digital AIs and other stuff, how can they even connect to do that? So we need to start by prioritizing the categories of people that we are dealing with, and make sure that we try to put in this. And the people in the room, let me take the panelists as an, we cannot bring you to start learning how to use computers because you are advanced on that. So that conversation will go. So whilst we are going, we should also look up, look down to the people that we have below, so that we can train them in basic things. So whilst we are also catching up with advanced world in African youth, we can also bring people who don’t have any idea to start also from somewhere. Then we’ll be bringing them in along along. So I think some will be ahead of people, but you always get the chance to bring people included in the conversation and topics. Thank you.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Thank you, Fifi. Do you wanna respond, Chris, to that?

CHRIS ODU: Can you hear me? Yes. Good, okay. Fifi, thank you very much for that thoughts. I agree totally with you. I agree totally with you. That’s why you see, when I started the conversation, I said something. I said, we need to identify our problems. Before you visit a doctor, you must first of all, believe that you’re actually not feeling fine before even going to the hospital. So we must first of all identify the problems and how we’re gonna identify those problems is having this kind of conversations. That’s why, for instance, whatever the work you do, you are the grassroots, you know these problems, you know how to categorize them, okay? So we cannot all be on the same pace, it’s not possible. Everybody must be on a very different level, even in schools and everything, there are different classes where you categorize people. So first of all, we need to identify our problems. We need to accept that we have this problem. And what’s that problem? Capacity building, yes, we’ve identified that. Now, what exactly are we building? How, which categories? What, is it people that do not know how to use devices? Is it people that want to construct robots? Is it people that want to control blockchains? What exactly? So once we’re able to do this, and how do we do that? Is by each and every one of us taking that responsibility to say, yes, I want to contribute in this way. So thank you very much for that contribution of yours.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Thank you very much. Atanas, you wanna say?

ATANAS BAIZIRA: Thank you so much. Very interesting conversation, actually. I wanted to say something quite interesting in this area, is that I have an example where we have seen a rise of literacy not coming from a special entity going to teach people, but the interest raising from actually the audience. What is interesting here, like the cases in India, what they have managed to do is to widen the digital infrastructure. And what happened is we have seen a rise in digital literacy in e-commerce, in mobile banking. So I believe internet infrastructure is an engine that will motivate the literacy to come also, and the pace when it comes to continuing with innovation. India now, when we talk about innovation in ICT, there is definitely an engine at some point. So I believe in our different countries, when we will be able to implement sustainable infrastructure that are reaching all the different areas, can it be the urban space or the rural areas, when we’ll reach all of them, they will definitely make use of the infrastructure they have, Sometimes it’s very interesting, they are very innovative, and use ways that we didn’t even think we were able to use. We have a case in many countries now that are sustainable infrastructure solutions that are known for profit, which we call community networks, whereby people around communities get together and say, we need internet, and we see it as a good, a force for good, an enabler. We are a community of agriculture, but we see that the internet will be an enabler in us selling our local products. So they get together, they connect to a certain access point, because the internet, what is it? It’s a network of networks. So they create, they have already their own interpersonal network, but then they connect to the internet at a certain place. And now you see trade will be moving around the space, quite interesting. And when you see the numbers, they get to do wonders with the access they have got. So I think we need to build capacity in infrastructure that will help us go with the pace. One person was talking about, you know, we have other priorities. In some countries, people are not able to feed themselves, and you see internet connection costs almost like half of their salary or something. So if you are them, you need to pay school fees of your children or connect to the internet. What is the choice you are going to take? So access to connectivity is very important. And for us to make sure this access is easy, we need to have infrastructure all around. When we have infrastructure, we need to have access. It will be cheap, and people will be able to actually, not only prioritizing, they will definitely prioritize the key aspect of their life, but they will balance, you know that we are moving with our natural challenges, but also we are not left behind. As we are solving our different challenges in life, we are leveraging the ICT, we are leveraging the digital solutions, so that we solve our challenges, helped by the digital solutions, and that will be very helpful for us to move together. So that’s what I wanted to bring to the table today.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: All right, Matilda, you have something to say?

MATILDA MOSES-MASHAURI: You know, like, whatever involves capacity building, like I’m in love with it. So for the development to that, you know what I think? We do not even need like, it’s not like we need something like sustainable development. I think for my country in particular, since I am working very closely with the people in the rural areas, we need to localize, localize infrastructural development. Because if you see in there, we are like, what, using 5G already? 5G, eh? In, I was in Singida just a few, I think less than five days ago, there’s not even 2G there. And I’m supposed to teach those women capacity building. So we do these capacity buildings, really, at the urban areas, we do a lot, even in the rural areas. But then we go to the capacity buildings without the infrastructure for that capacity building. So if I have the 2G internet, and sometimes actually the 2G is until if I find any, I need to find a spot, climb on top of a tree, or sit somewhere across, around the mountain. You know, to try to balance the signal like frequency wave. So we need to localize this, the development. So the private sectors, the government, they really need to push their focus for the digital infrastructure development into the local areas, the rural areas. You know, speaking about it, you people, you think it’s worse than even how I’m explaining. It’s worse, I’m telling you. It’s a… I don’t know how… For my country, for Tanzania, it’s worse, guys. I’ve been in Kigoma, Kasulu, where the sand is literally red. You know, you just go there, I have white hair, by the way, so you can imagine with the dust how my hair was, with the 2G internet not working, trying to teach these women. The women do not even have… I went, for example, for Kigoma, these people, it was the women entrepreneurs, they were doing amazing job. Confidently, I’m telling you, perfect job. So we went there to, you know, give them the digital capacity building, how to engage them to the digital marketing. Mind you, we want to engage them to the e-commerce. Mind you, these people do not have a smartphone, never even seen one, can’t even write their names. You know, the e-commerce also comes, you’re, oh, my God. And oh, guys, the situation is bad. What I just wanted to say, the point should just be like we should localize this development to the rural areas, localize the infrastructure, the digital infrastructures, yeah, so we need this. And this is… Actually, for this situation, it’s actually different because I went there to teach the women entrepreneurs. But if I was doing for the women and men entrepreneurs, I’m pretty sure even the men will be facing the same challenge because it’s something they don’t know, something is not there, it’s like going… One day, you know, a lady once asked me, so you guys came here talking about dream, dream, dream. What is a dream to begin with? And someone doesn’t even know what is a dream to begin with. And then I’m about to tell this person, you know what? You can be a software engineer, you can do this, and the vision compact, it’s just terrible. So that’s what I wanted to say.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: All right, thank you so much. So you can do, like from this discussion that has been going on, so you can do digital, like capacity building or digital literacy without having proper infrastructures. So it’s really important to make sure that we invest on proper infrastructures so we can ensure like everyone can get access to all these things. So before I get to see if there’s any online contribution, I think there was one contribution back there. So I’ll go to it and then I’ll see online if I have a question or any contribution.

GRACE: Okay, can you hear me all? Good morning, I’m Grace from Cameroon. I want to be more practical about what you have said because I’m a learner. I don’t want to say that I’ve understood everything, but I’m here to learn. So you mentioned something like identify your problem. Okay, I love technology. I want to learn more about it. I want to solve problem. I want to make money from technology. But how? How can I start? Where am I starting? So I think one obsession like that is to help us to understand more what is all about technology and all the rest. So I would like to just have a small advice about it. Thank you very much.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: You wanna say? Okay, so I can have Chris respond to that and then we can move to one on site and then we can move online.

CHRIS ODU: I hope I’m audible now. Yes. Okay, so thank you very much my sister from Cameroon for that question. You know, I like going back to my analogy of the doctor. You know, when you have an illness, you would have to make inquiries. Where is this doctor? How can I treat this illness? Good, and one of them is what you have just done. Asking questions of how. Where, how can you start and all of that. that. I think just a little bit of linkage of what Fifi said. There are different levels, everyone is not on the same level and we are here as supposed experts, okay, we are still bigger experts and all of that. There are actually resources online where you can actually make those inquiries or how to learn. For instance, if you want to go into, let me just use the case of blockchain, someone might want to say, okay, I want to go into this blockchain, I want to actually know how beneficial it can be because blockchain is broad, okay, it’s come to solve problems that are existing. However, we are not using that blockchain to solve those problems. So you can now say, okay, you want to tap into that sector, so how can I now know about more about blockchain? There are a lot of resources online, one of them I can link you to is the ITU Academy website. Yes, it has a whole lot of good resources where you can actually learn. There are some of the paid resources, some are actually free. Yeah, ITU, that’s our International Telecommunication Union, that’s one of them and also one of the very good places which we always go to, YouTube. YouTube is our friend, that’s why I look at it, YouTube is our friend. I think we can, you can virtually see almost everything in YouTube but sometimes, what I like saying, that’s why I mentioned earlier about mentoring, okay. My friend here from Ghana also said something about mentoring, which is you would actually put the person on the same path as you. Well, I kind of also disagree with him on that because, for instance, when we’re all young, we needed parents to actually put us on the path. It doesn’t mean we have to be the same like them, we need someone to guide you on the path, first of all. So, okay, it’s always good to attach yourself to a mentor. You don’t have to be exactly as a mentor but he’s gonna put you because he has gone through hurdles already, so he’s gonna put you through so that you don’t go to the same hurdles as he or she has gone through. So, that’s why having a mentor is also key because they’re going to put you through whatever you need, direct you on the right path, and also direct you to where you can actually get these resources. So, I hope I’ve been able to answer that for you.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Thank you. Wow. Thank you so much, Chris. So, I’ll take, if you can take one minute, if you can, and then I’ll move on line because we’re out of time, and then we can close. Okay. So, one minute, one minute, and then one minute from online, and then we close with my panelists.

RAZEN ZAKARIA: Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I’m Razen Zakaria from Egypt. I’m an Abayag ambassador. I have a very important question about the internet justice and equality. Nowadays, we see that, especially in the countries that have aborts, there’s not people that can have an access to the internet to reach out their voices to the world and to connect with the people around all of the world. Who are the sectors that have a right to manage, not control or prevent people to get access to the internet? So, who are the sectors that have a right to manage this internet rights to the people in this society that have a word? This is my question.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Okay. Is there anyone who wants to respond? If you can respond in less than one minute, I’ll appreciate.

ATANAS BAIZIRA: Very good question, actually, Razen. What is pretty much interesting is that every aspect of life, the digital technologies are being influenced and can influence. Things we are seeing currently, when you see people affected by war, definitely people using ICT technologies as war tools. But also we are seeing humanitarians using digital technologies to solve these issues. So if we take technology, we don’t have to take it and frame it in an area, but we need to see it as a tool that you can use for good and we advocate for the use of technology for good. It’s like a knife. A doctor can use the knife to help operate and save a life, but someone else can use a knife to kill someone. You get the point. The knife is not the problem. The problem is the people. So I think technologies that are centered around the people are definitely the ethical one and we need to use them in a sense that, you know, looking for what sense that is ethical and that’s the only way forward. From my perspective. Thank you.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: All right. Thank you so much. I’m going to move online first and then I get to my last on site and then we close. So please, yeah. If you can take one minute or less, that’d be nice. Yeah, thank you so much, Lamayla. And please, the floor is yours.

RAPID SUN: Good morning. My name is Rapid Sun from Cambodia. So my question to the panelists from India. So can you elaborate more about the mechanism about that for the infrastructure setting, especially for AI development? And how… Hello? Do you hear? Yes. Okay. So how the developing country join the mechanism, for example, if you already have the mechanism in place for setting the infrastructure? Thank you.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: All right. Dr. Manojit, can you answer in like… Have you… Yeah. Can you answer in like one minute or less?

DR. MONOJIT: Yes. Okay. So to beat the question, I’d like to… share that since we are almost close by neighbors, Cambodia and India are not very far, we can certainly explore the collaboration aspects in not just the governmental side but also the private players, you know. We’ll be interested to share the best practices and particularly given the fact that Cambodia and India share very close relations, we do have a very friendly relations between us, probably we can take this ahead, probably post-session or something, I think there are multiple avenues that we can collaborate and obviously given the fact that Cambodia and the relation with Africa, we all can be working together, at least disseminating the skills and the best practices can always be explored at any point of time.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Okay, thank you very much Dr. Marajit. I think we can, you guys can link up after the session too and then you can discuss further, right? So I would like to thank my panelists and of course the floor for participating in this session and I would like my panelists with one word to close this. How does a fully digitally world look like to you in one word? Like a fully digitally developed world look like to you in one word? I don’t know who is ready to start but whoever is ready to start just in one word, a fully digital world,

ATANAS BAIZIRA: how does it look like to you? For me a fully digital world, it’s about people who are connected

NOAH ABDELBAKI: and interconnected. Connection, connectivity, okay. For me it’s about empowerment and enablement.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Empowerment and enablement. Matilda? Yeah, I actually wrote something here, so I like

MATILDA MOSES-MASHAURI: to leave you guys with the thoughts which is the compute divide is a challenge, we all agreed, but also an opportunity. So it is an opportunity to rewrite the rule. of digital engagement to ensure that computational power becomes a shared result that uplifts all, and not that privilege that deepens inequality.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: I like that word. A lot of words. One word.

CHRIS ODU: Chot, while we live here, let’s be the change that we seek to see.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Change.

DR. MONOJIT: For me, it will be accessible. That’s what our government of India is also looking for, to make sure every resource available on the internet is accessible for everyone, irrespective of the distance, like as I mentioned in my course, the far-flung area students are also getting everyone. So accessible should be that one word. Thank you.

MILLENIUM ANTHONY: Thank you very much. Thank you so much, everyone, for attending. I’d also like to thank my online participants. This was really amazing from the contribution that I received from the floor and online. Hope to see you around. Thank you so much. Have a nice day. Yeah, my panelists, please. Let’s take a picture before we leave. We can make it. Oh, that’s amazing. Congratulations. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Digital divide and infrastructure challenges

MATILDA MOSES-MASHAURI

ATANAS BAIZIRA

MILLENIUM ANTHONY

KENDI KOSA

Lack of digital infrastructure in rural areas

High cost of internet access

Public-private partnerships for infrastructure development

Multiple speakers agreed that lack of digital infrastructure and high costs of internet access are major barriers to digital inclusion, especially in rural areas. They suggested public-private partnerships as a potential solution.

Importance of digital literacy and capacity building

MATILDA MOSES-MASHAURI

SOBY ABRAHAM FIFI

ATANAS BAIZIRA

CHRIS ODU

Lack of basic digital literacy skills

Multilingual digital literacy training

Localized and targeted capacity building efforts

Mentorship and guidance for technology learners

Several speakers emphasized the need for digital literacy training and capacity building, highlighting the importance of localized, multilingual approaches and mentorship programs.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of private sector involvement in developing digital infrastructure, either through direct investment or public-private partnerships.

NOAH ABDELBAKI

KENDI KOSA

Private sector investment in digital infrastructure

Public-private partnerships for infrastructure development

Both speakers highlighted the importance of cross-border collaboration and knowledge sharing to improve digital literacy and development efforts.

ATANAS BAIZIRA

DR. MONOJIT

Multilingual digital literacy training

Collaboration between countries to share best practices

Unexpected Consensus

Ethical use of technology

ATANAS BAIZIRA

CHRIS ODU

Importance of ethical use of technology

Potential of AI and blockchain for development

While discussing different aspects of technology adoption, both speakers unexpectedly converged on the importance of ethical considerations in technology use and development, emphasizing the need for human-centered approaches.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the need for improved digital infrastructure, the importance of digital literacy and capacity building, and the role of multi-stakeholder collaboration in addressing the digital divide.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the key challenges and potential solutions for bridging the digital divide. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the issues, which could facilitate more coordinated and effective efforts to address digital inequalities in developing countries.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to digital literacy training

SOBY ABRAHAM FIFI

ATANAS BAIZIRA

Lack of basic digital literacy skills

Multilingual digital literacy training

While Soby Abraham Fifi emphasizes the need for basic digital literacy skills, Atanas Baizira focuses on multilingual training to overcome language barriers. This represents a difference in approach to addressing digital literacy challenges.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around approaches to digital literacy training, the role of different stakeholders in infrastructure development, and the prioritization of basic vs. advanced technologies.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most differences are in emphasis or approach rather than fundamental disagreements. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of bridging the digital divide, with variations in proposed strategies. These differences could lead to a more comprehensive approach if integrated effectively.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for tailored approaches to digital literacy, but differ in their focus. Matilda emphasizes localization based on community needs, while Atanas focuses on language-specific training.

MATILDA MOSES-MASHAURI

ATANAS BAIZIRA

Localized and targeted capacity building efforts

Multilingual digital literacy training

Both speakers agree on the need for investment in digital infrastructure, but Chris emphasizes the government’s role in creating favorable policies, while Noah focuses on attracting private sector investment.

CHRIS ODU

NOAH ABDELBAKI

Government’s role in creating favorable policies

Private sector investment in digital infrastructure

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of private sector involvement in developing digital infrastructure, either through direct investment or public-private partnerships.

NOAH ABDELBAKI

KENDI KOSA

Private sector investment in digital infrastructure

Public-private partnerships for infrastructure development

Both speakers highlighted the importance of cross-border collaboration and knowledge sharing to improve digital literacy and development efforts.

ATANAS BAIZIRA

DR. MONOJIT

Multilingual digital literacy training

Collaboration between countries to share best practices

Key Takeaways

The digital divide remains a significant challenge, especially in developing countries and rural areas

Multi-stakeholder collaboration and targeted capacity building are crucial for bridging the digital divide

Infrastructure development and affordable access are foundational for digital inclusion

Digital literacy efforts need to be localized and consider language barriers

Emerging technologies like AI and blockchain present both opportunities and challenges for developing countries

Resolutions and Action Items

Explore collaborations between countries to share best practices in digital development

Implement multilingual digital literacy training programs

Develop public-private partnerships for infrastructure development in underserved areas

Engage youth in shaping digital policies and initiatives

Promote mentorship programs to guide technology learners

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance basic digital literacy needs with adoption of advanced technologies

Specific mechanisms for ensuring equitable access to digital resources in conflict-affected areas

Detailed strategies for making digital infrastructure economically viable in rural and remote areas

How to address the gender gap in digital access and skills across different cultural contexts

Suggested Compromises

Balancing investment in urban and rural digital infrastructure development

Combining top-down policy approaches with grassroots digital literacy initiatives

Adapting global technological standards to local needs and contexts

Finding a middle ground between rapid technological advancement and ensuring no one is left behind

We do not have this digital infrastructures. We go even if we go we’re gonna go to do with this The session like this the programs, you know, it’s not even about teaching It’s about trying to engage them into this tech technical world people are very they have amazing and confident works People want to be like they have vision But then they do not know even how to dream about those dreams because how can they dream of something that they do not know?

speaker

Matilda Moses-Mashauri

reason

This comment highlights the fundamental challenge of digital literacy in underserved areas – the lack of basic infrastructure and exposure that prevents people from even conceptualizing the possibilities of technology.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the need for basic infrastructure and exposure before advanced digital literacy can be meaningful. It prompted others to consider more foundational issues in bridging the digital divide.

We need to draft the policies to support the data exchange between the countries and also the data production laws because this will attract tech companies, cloud service providers, internet service providers to invest in our countries.

speaker

Noah Abdelbaki

reason

This comment introduces the important role of policy and regulation in creating an environment conducive to technological investment and development.

impact

It broadened the conversation from just infrastructure and education to include the policy landscape needed to support digital development. It prompted discussion of multi-stakeholder approaches.

So what we did with PAYAG is train people in languages that are very close to them, so they will understand very well the stakes of the digital space, they will understand the stakes of internet governance in languages that are very close to them.

speaker

Atanas Baizira

reason

This comment highlights the importance of linguistic and cultural accessibility in digital literacy efforts.

impact

It introduced the concept of localization in digital education efforts, prompting others to consider how to make digital literacy more culturally relevant and accessible.

We need to identify our problems. Before you visit a doctor, you must first of all, believe that you’re actually not feeling fine before even going to the hospital.

speaker

Chris Odu

reason

This analogy effectively frames the importance of problem identification and acceptance before solutions can be implemented.

impact

It refocused the discussion on the need to properly diagnose and acknowledge digital divide issues before jumping to solutions. It prompted more nuanced consideration of the challenges faced in different contexts.

I believe internet infrastructure is an engine that will motivate the literacy to come also, and the pace when it comes to continuing with innovation.

speaker

Atanas Baizira

reason

This comment presents the idea that infrastructure itself can drive literacy and innovation, rather than the other way around.

impact

It challenged the typical order of thinking about digital development, suggesting that infrastructure investment could lead organically to increased digital literacy and innovation. This prompted discussion about prioritization in digital development efforts.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening the scope of considerations in addressing the digital divide. They moved the conversation from a focus on just education and skills to include infrastructure, policy, cultural relevance, and the interplay between these factors. The discussion evolved to recognize the complexity of the issue, acknowledging that solutions must be multifaceted and tailored to local contexts. The comments also highlighted the need for a bottom-up approach, starting with basic infrastructure and cultural understanding before moving to more advanced digital literacy efforts.

How can we ensure gender equity in digital literacy?

speaker

Matilda Moses-Mashauri

explanation

Matilda emphasized the need for equal access to digital resources and education for girls and boys, highlighting the current disparities in opportunities.

How can we attract more tech companies and investors to Africa and the Middle East?

speaker

Noah Abdelbaki

explanation

Noah discussed the need for policies and frameworks to encourage investment in digital infrastructure in these regions.

How can we incorporate digital literacy into both formal and informal education?

speaker

Millennium Anthony

explanation

This question was posed to explore sustainable ways to build digital skills across different segments of society.

How can we ensure AI and other new technologies benefit developing countries?

speaker

Millennium Anthony

explanation

This question was raised to address the gap in technology adoption and benefits between developed and developing nations.

How can we improve collaboration between different stakeholders in the internet governance space?

speaker

Millennium Anthony

explanation

This question was asked to explore ways to enhance multi-stakeholder relationships for driving change in developing countries.

How can we categorize and prioritize different levels of digital literacy training?

speaker

Soby Abraham Fifi

explanation

Fifi suggested the need to tailor digital literacy efforts to different skill levels, from basic computer use to advanced technologies.

How can we localize digital infrastructure development in rural areas?

speaker

Matilda Moses-Mashauri

explanation

Matilda emphasized the need to focus on building digital infrastructure in underserved rural areas to enable effective capacity building.

Who has the right to manage internet access in countries affected by conflict?

speaker

Razen Zakaria

explanation

Razen raised this question to address issues of internet justice and equality in conflict-affected regions.

How can developing countries join or replicate India’s mechanisms for AI infrastructure development?

speaker

Rapid Sun

explanation

This question was asked to explore possibilities for international collaboration on AI infrastructure.

Summary

This discussion focused on the first international treaty on AI, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, recently concluded by the Council of Europe. Participants from various countries shared their perspectives on the treaty’s significance and implementation. The convention aims to establish a baseline for AI governance while balancing innovation with safeguards for human rights and democratic values.

Key points emphasized included the importance of international cooperation in addressing AI’s cross-border nature and the need for a shared understanding of AI risks and opportunities. Participants highlighted the treaty’s role in setting clear principles and parameters for AI development and use, while allowing flexibility for different national approaches. The convention was praised for its focus on human rights in the context of emerging technologies.

Several speakers noted the importance of involving multiple stakeholders, including the technical community and civil society, in the ongoing development and implementation of AI governance frameworks. The treaty’s provisions for safe innovation and research were highlighted as crucial elements. Participants also discussed the convention’s potential impact on fighting disinformation and protecting democratic processes.

The discussion underscored the global nature of the treaty, with speakers emphasizing its openness to countries beyond Europe and the potential for broader international cooperation. The convention was presented as a starting point for ongoing dialogue and adaptation to the rapidly evolving field of AI. Overall, the participants viewed the treaty as a significant step towards creating a global framework for responsible AI development and use.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of the AI treaty as the first legally binding international instrument on AI governance

– Balancing innovation and safeguards for human rights, democracy and rule of law

– The need for international cooperation and a shared baseline for AI governance

– Implementation challenges and plans at the national level

– The treaty’s potential impact on researchers, developers and the technical community

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore different countries’ perspectives on the recently concluded Council of Europe treaty on AI, human rights, democracy and rule of law. Panelists shared insights on their country’s approach to implementing the treaty and discussed its significance for global AI governance.

The tone of the discussion was generally positive and collaborative. Panelists emphasized the historic nature of the treaty and the importance of international cooperation. There was a sense of shared purpose in addressing AI challenges while fostering innovation. The tone remained constructive throughout, with panelists building on each other’s points and acknowledging the complexity of the issues involved.

Speakers

– Thomas SCHNEIDER: Chair/moderator of the discussion

– Işil Selen DENEMEÇ – Head of Legal Department, Digital Transformation Office of the Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye

– Ambassador Brendan DOWLING – Ambassador for Cyber Affairs and Critical Technology (Australia)

– Mauricio GIBSON – Head of Multilaterals at the International AI Policy Directorate at the UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT)

– Allison PETERS: Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Democracy Human Rights at Labor, U.S. State Department

Additional speakers:

– Nigel CASSIMIRE, Deputy Secretary-General, Caribbean Telecommunications Union

– Lina VILTRAKIENE, Lithuanian ambassador for digital economy

Expanded Summary: Council of Europe AI Treaty Discussion

Introduction

This discussion focused on the recently concluded Council of Europe treaty on AI, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Participants from various countries shared their perspectives on the treaty’s significance and implementation challenges. The convention aims to establish a baseline for AI governance while balancing innovation with safeguards for human rights and democratic values.

Key Themes and Discussion Points

1. Significance of the AI Treaty

The discussion emphasized the importance of the treaty in addressing AI governance. Ambassador Dowling from Australia succinctly captured the core tension addressed by the treaty: “We all see the upsides of AI. We all see the benefits for development, for economic opportunity. But with every new phase of digital technology, we’ve seen human rights, the rights of women and girls, the rights of freedom of speech, democracy jeopardised.” This comment set the tone for much of the subsequent discussion.

2. Balancing Innovation and Safeguards

A central theme was the treaty’s aim to balance AI innovation with protection of human rights and democratic values. Allison Peters from the U.S. State Department emphasized this point, stating, “We don’t want to do anything as it relates to regulation that cracks down on innovation, doesn’t allow that innovation to happen, and so certainly, with this convention, we see a convention that allows us to harmonize various different international approaches to AI, and one that still allows companies to innovate.”

Mr. Gibson from the UK government provided insight into a specific provision addressing this balance, noting an exemption for research and development: “In the convention, there is a sort of, I think I touched upon it in my statement as well, but an exemption for research and development. So what that doesn’t mean is it just excludes all and every single form of research and development from the convention, but it creates a sort of a limitation and a safeguard.”

3. International Participation and Perspectives

David Fairchild from Canada highlighted the effort to involve a diverse range of countries in the treaty process: “It’s not the UN, but at the same time we felt it was extremely important to try to get as many member states from as many regions involved in the process.”

Isil Denemec from Turkey introduced the perspective of how a country’s specific geopolitical context shapes its approach to AI governance, stating, “Turkey’s unique position, geopolitical and geostrategic position influences its approach to global AI governance.”

Tetsushi Hirano presented Japan’s perspective, emphasizing their commitment to human-centric AI and the importance of international cooperation in AI governance.

4. Implementation Approaches and Challenges

Countries are taking varied approaches to implementing the treaty and aligning it with national AI regulations. Mr. Gibson explained the UK’s approach, which includes the AI Safety Institute and efforts to align with international frameworks while maintaining a pro-innovation stance.

Mr. Thomas Schneider introduced the Huderia (human rights democracy and rule of law risk and impact assessment methodology) as a tool for assessing AI systems’ impacts. He also clarified the distinction between the Council of Europe and the European Union, emphasizing the Council’s focus on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.

5. Addressing AI-Specific Challenges

Lina Viltrakiene, the Lithuanian ambassador for digital economy, highlighted the importance of combating AI-driven disinformation and protecting democratic processes. She also mentioned the Vilnius Convention and Lithuania’s role in the treaty signing.

6. Future Developments and Adaptations

The discussion touched on the potential for future adjustments as new countries join the treaty. Nigel Cassimire from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union inquired about the process for additional countries to join in the future.

Additional Points of Interest

1. A question from the scientific community addressed the potential impact of the treaty on daily coding practices.

2. The brief discussion on disinformation highlighted its relevance to the treaty’s objectives.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the global nature of the treaty and its potential for broader international cooperation. Participants viewed the convention as a significant step towards creating a framework for responsible AI development and use, while acknowledging the need for ongoing dialogue and adaptation in response to the rapidly evolving field of AI.

Mr Thomas SCHNEIDER: So, can you hear me okay? Many people can hear me? Okay. All right, let’s start. So, as you know, this early morning session is about the first international treaty on AI, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, which has been concluded earlier this year. And of course, the aim is to cope, to help us cope with the risks and opportunities that AI offer or bring. And I will not go into detail about risks and opportunities because we all by now more or less know what these are, at least for the time being. So, let’s start right away with Ambassador Dowling from Australia. Australia was also actively participating in the negotiations of the treaty until this March. So, how does Australia view the balance between innovation and safeguards so that we have a robust and resilient innovation thanks to AI, but also make sure that human rights, democracy, and rule of law is protected? Thank you. Look, that’s the key question I think we’re all grappling with. We all see the upsides of AI. We all see the benefits for development, for economic opportunity. But with every new phase of digital technology, we’ve seen human rights, the rights of women and girls, the rights of freedom of speech, democracy jeopardised. So, I’m really positive about the Council of Europe’s effort here to get ahead of the curve, to say that we will step in early in the development of this technology and its far more ubiquitous use and try to set some guardrails, protections for rights, speech, the preservation of democracy. I think we made the mistake in earlier phases of technology when we saw software development in the 90s, when we saw social media in the early 2000s, in saying we trust the technology world, we trust commercial entities to prioritise safety and rights online. learnt the hard way that that’s not the case, that we shouldn’t expect commercial entities to be the guardians of rights and privacy, that that’s a role for governments and civil society to work together on. AI is a fast evolving area of technology but I think what this treaty does is set some very clear principles and parameters that say here are the expectations that governments have on the development of this technology, here is how we expect all platforms to preserve rights, privacy, ensure their technology is not misused and so I think acting that early in a way that’s not overly onerous or prescriptive, I think the treaty strikes at right balance where it will not stifle innovation. We feel that it’s a very commendable effort to try and set those parameters early in this particular phase of AI to ensure that we’re not looking back in 10 years time saying well we wish that we’d done more in the early phase to preserve rights and democracy. Thank you very much Ambassador Dowling. Now we go to to the West, to the United States. We have Alison Peters here, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Democracy Human Rights at Labor, the State Department. So Miss Peters, the US was very active in the negotiations on that treaty as we have been able to read also in some journals. How do you see the treaty promoting respect for human rights democracy around the world, not just in Europe or in the United States and how does the convention, the way it is in front of us now, reflect the United States approach for rights respecting AI?

AUDIENCE: Well first and foremost just a huge thank you to you Thomas and your incredible team. I think it has been several years of negotiations and close partnership I think across governments engaged in the Council of Europe and it is because of your leadership that we’re really here today talking about the fact that many of our countries have now signed the world’s first ever treaty on artificial intelligence and that’s quite a feat. I think second we really need to acknowledge that in a context in which we continue to have debates in the United Nations and in the broader multilateral system in terms of the applicability of international law, particularly international human rights law, it’s quite striking that the world’s first ever treaty on artificial intelligence is focused on human rights, democracy and the role of law. For the United States you know we engage actively in this negotiation process because we see a couple of key benefits in having a legally binding convention on our artificial intelligence. And of course, Ambassador Dowling laid out some of the both opportunities and risks that we see as it relates to artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. But we know first and foremost, having a convention will really help us set a shared baseline on rights respecting, use, development, design of artificial intelligence. And that shared baseline goes beyond just the United States and other countries sort of in the global north, right? That shared baseline is a shared baseline that is really global in context, that is applicable to every single country that is here at IGF and beyond. But we know, given the debates that we’re seeing in terms of human rights and their applicability to emerging technologies, that having a sort of shared baseline amongst democracies on rights respecting design, development, and use of AI is critical. Certainly, the benefits don’t end just with implementation of this convention, as we’ve seen, for example, in the Council of Europe context where we have the Budapest Convention on cybercrime, having an instrument in which our governments can focus on shared cooperation, having a mechanism for shared cooperation, is incredibly useful, is incredibly salient as we continue to debate issues around cybercrime in the UN system now. The follow-up cooperation mechanisms that we expect with this AI convention will also, I think, provide a really important opportunity to advance our shared efforts and promote human rights, democracy, and the role of law on the context of artificial intelligence, including allowing us to really share best practices across the board, across governments, across regions. Third, I will say, you know, you asked the question on how this helps advance sort of the US priorities as it relates to artificial intelligence, and as we look at the need to place safeguards on AI, on AI systems, and the companies that develop them, it’s also really critical that we preserve the space for innovation, right? We don’t want to do anything as it relates to regulation that cracks down on innovation, doesn’t allow that innovation to happen, and so certainly, with this convention, we see a convention that allows us to harmonize various different international approaches to AI, and one that still allows companies to innovate, to be creative, to create new AI systems that help really advance the opportunities as it relates to AI, but also help crack down on some of those risks that we’re talking about. In our system, all of these priorities are bipartisan in nature, so even though our government is changing over quite soon, this is a priority that we see across the board, across political parties in our countries, and we look forward to working with the many governments on this stage, but hopefully other governments here at IGF who will join us in this process. So again, just a huge thanks for having us today.

Mr Thomas SCHNEIDER: Thank you. And I think at one point that is important is that it’s not just the convention and the parties, it’s the bigger cooperation setting around, which is something that we have been able to see with the Cybercrime Convention, with the Budapest Convention, as an important factor as well. Let us now move to another ICE country. Canada, Mr. Fairchild, you also participated very actively in the work on the treaty, helping us to count the hours that we have left to find compromise on everything. So if you could share your insights into how international cooperation can strengthen the treaty and ensure that it reflects the shared values of democratic nations.

AUDIENCE: Thank you very much, Ambassador, and good morning to everybody. It’s great to be here, day zero, it’s always a bit of a cold start. So thank you, and I think first of all, I’d start by thanking the Council of Europe, we have some of the staff here from the actual process in the room. It was a very long journey, but I think at the end of the day, the result is a very positive one. speaks for itself. So I think, and just to reflect a bit of the earlier comments, I mean this is the first international treaty on an emerging technology. I think it’s really important to reinforce that, you know, it’s the Council of Europe that brought forward this idea and has seen the creation of effectively what is the first legally binding instrument that is creating obligations on signatories to uphold certain values. Human rights, respect for democracy, and the rule of law. I think that’s an important statement in and of itself because it’s very different from a lot of the other work that’s going on in other multilateral fora which are speaking more on the normative basis. And I think which is why Canada, who’s not a member of the Council of Europe, it was an observer to the process, and others on the floor here, really sought to participate because this was our opportunity to frame at the international level effectively the first legally binding instrument. So from our perspective it was crucial to be there as an active participant on the delegation. We spent a lot of time trying to involve as many states as possible and so I think this is another important element to bring to the to the debate. It’s not the UN, but at the same time we felt it was extremely important to try to get as many member states from as many regions involved in the process. And so throughout the nearly two years of negotiation we saw a gradual increase not only in the number of participants but in fact signatories, hopefully at the end of the day. And so a cluster of observer groups in and of themselves. Could you bring me also an earphone for me?

Mr Thomas SCHNEIDER: Okay. And I think it’s an important statement. And we continue in that regard. So even past the end of the negotiations we’re seeing more states actively coming forward, trying to become part of the process. Of course post negotiations it’s sort of… have to take the treaty as it is but we are seeing increased interest particularly the Americas showed a high level of interest Asia as well we had Japan who was one of the observers but more countries at this point seemingly coming forward with an express interest and why is because they also have at the national levels everybody is come fascinated with the question what to do about AI. AI is a step change in the environment it’s an enabling technology which means if you haven’t regulated legislated or created frameworks to manage AI it is going to impact pretty much every sector of your government and every public policy area and so for us from the beginning we were also part of the previous process that the Council of Europe ran for the two years prior to the launch of negotiations this was all about framing and it’s important member states have obligations and so that the context of this framework instrument was to create a baseline and this is an interesting second point is this is one of the few areas where we were negotiating international treaty where there was frankly no floor most member states don’t have AI legislation so it wasn’t about leveling up at the international level it was actually about creating the baseline level to which member states have to now meet and so was it a very unique opportunity for Canada who is quite advanced in its own legislative and regulatory frameworks to help in fact you know create that floor and so I think we were quite successful always negotiations is about concessions but the end of the day I think you know could we have had an in a stronger instrument yes could we have had a weaker instrument yes and I think at least from Canada’s perspective there was a fine balance to the negotiations but at the end of the day what we have successfully created our baseline obligations that member states now have to take away and as they develop their own regulatory and national legislative frameworks they must meet these obligations I think that was a critical reason for us to be a part of this thank you thank you very much

AUDIENCE: David, I’m now nicely cabled and hearing myself several times with several loops. So yes, I think this is an important element that you named, that we didn’t start like comparing our national bases, but we had to basically set this floor, set this baseline from scratch, which was a challenge, but it was also an opportunity to seize. So now we go to a European country for once. We have Izil Deminec from Turkey, Turkey. You were also actively participating in the negotiations. How is Turkey planning to implement this convention? How are you going to organize yourself so that you address the challenges posed by AI and help your country to stay innovative at the same time? Thank you, Thomas. Thank you for the organization and the invitation as well. I hope my voice is… So as a member of the Council of Europe, Turkey recognizes the transformative potential of AI and obviously it brings with it a profound batch of legal and ethical questions. And the rapid spread of AI made it essential for everyone to take proactive steps to uphold AI principles at every stage of the AI lifecycle, which we were addressing at the CAI as well. To establish a robust framework that fosters ethical, sustainable, and innovative AI while addressing the unique challenges that AI poses, we have adopted the National AI Strategy back in 2021. It was drafted together with the Digital Transformation Office and the Ministry of Industry and Technology, and it is built upon six strategic priorities, which includes regulating to accelerate socio-economic adaptation. one of the ways Turkey is planning to address these challenges is through strengthening the legal framework. This is being done through amendment of existing laws or adopting of new ones as necessary and alongside the AI rules and regulations we are also working on our frameworks concerning both personal and non-personal data because we cannot separate the two from together as data is an integral element of AI technologies. So as per the strategy Turkey’s core objective focus on establishing an agile and inclusive process at developing governance mechanisms that promote impartiality, privacy, ethical oversight and algorithmic accountability while we also enhance data capacity to assess AI socio-economic impacts. The strategy also underscores the importance of fostering innovation which was one of our concerns at the CAI as well and ensuring alignment with international ethical standards. So I will be very briefly listing some of the key measures to support these goals. Aligning national AI regulations with international frameworks and commitments to maintain consistency with global governance structures. Creating an AI impact assessment framework which we are currently dealing with at the CAI to evaluate ethical social and economic impacts of AI systems. Preparing and implementing guidelines for algorithmic accountability and explainability to ensure transparency in automated decision-making and encouraging capacity building initiatives and public awareness in AI use. These are some of the issues that we are actually dealing with at the CAI. So it is essential to emphasize that legal challenges, these legal challenges require legal solutions beyond just legal considerations because we need to encompass social, financial, political and other dimensions at the same time. And Turkey’s unique position, geopolitical and geostrategic position influences its approach to global AI governance. That’s why we have been actively monitoring and participating in international efforts. shape AI governance frameworks, not just at the CAI, which is also one of the strategy’s six priorities. This commitment is also clear in our active involvement at the CAI processes from the very beginning, since the CAHI, which led to the development of the first global legally binding AI treaty. So we are aware that we are at the forefront of disruptive technological change and it is evident that AI holds immense power, potential to shape our societies for the better. But how can we do this? We need robust ethical and legal frameworks that guide the process. So the framework convention emerging from the CAI process represents a pivotal step in this direction, which embodies the collective efforts of nations to ensure AI aligns with human rights, democratic values and shared global practices. We must recognize that AI knows no borders and its impact is inherently global, therefore a legally binding international instrument is not just desirable, but also essential to address these issues, to create a unified approach. Well, this instrument we hope will ensure accountability, transparency and fairness, while fostering trust among stakeholders to also help the development of this technology. Therefore we will continue to be actively contributing and remaining in the CAI processes and other alongside our other work on AI and other technological advancements. Thank you.

Mr Thomas SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much Isil and I think it’s also important to raise the importance of data and data governance. The convention of course deals mainly with AI, but you find hints to data across the convention and if you in particular if you look at the explanatory report, then of course you find references to appropriate data quality and other issues related to data. Now we have an online participant. I hope the connection works. It is a colleague Tetsushi Hirano from Japan. Japan has been also a very active participant in the negotiations on that treaty at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg and but Japan has not only been a very active at the Council of Europe, Japan has also led other important initiatives like the G7 Hiroshima framework and of course Japan is also active in other processes like OECD and others. So Tetsushi, I hope you are there. My question to you would be How does Japan’s approach to AI governance align with the principles being proposed in this treaty? See whether the connection works … Any information from the… it’s coming? What’s the time in Japan now? What is the time difference? It’s already in the afternoon. Yeah, or we can if there’s some difficulties we can we have one more physically present human being here supposed to talk. We can switch the order, Vadim. No, he is coming. Okay. So let’s… Yeah, now we hear you. Hello. Did you hear my question or should I repeat it?

AUDIENCE: Okay. Okay, excellent, so we’re happy to listen to you now, Tetsushi. If you can speak up a little louder, your voice is a little low, so that may help. Do you hear me? Yeah, okay. Okay. So I’m very happy to be able to participate in this session to discuss this important international treaty with familiar faces from the negotiation. And I would like once again to thank Thomas and the CHI secretariat for their outstanding work and support throughout the negotiation process and to congratulate the states and the EU for signing the convention. In answer to Thomas, I think it is symbolic that this treaty was adopted in an institution that was founded on the bitter lessons of the Second World War. At the heart of what the Council of Europe stands for are common values that Japan shares. This is one of the reasons why, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Japan, together with Canada, the United States of America and Mexico, became an observer in the Council of Europe. These common values are crystallized in different ways in international law and in the constitution of the 57 states that have agreed on the frame of conventional artificial intelligence. The aim of the convention is to ensure that the activities within the life cycle of artificial intelligence systems comply with existing international and national legal obligations. This means that Japan, along with 56 other countries, has agreed on a framework to marry the shared values into the future where AI systems will be used in every corner of society. Some of the principles of the framework are transparency, equality, privacy, reliability, which are developed taking into account the socio-technical characteristics of AI technology. These principles will be operationalized in the risk and impact management framework. In my view, one of the challenges for the implementation of this treaty is the operationalization of these principles in accordance with existing legal obligations. It seems that the key lies in building capacity on the ethical, legal, and social implications of technological characteristics of AI, such as explainability or accuracy. This summer, Japan launched a new discussion on the future domestic framework for AI regulation under the AI Strategy Council, taking into account the new rules, guidelines, as well as recent achievements in the international forum, including the Hiroshima AI process. At the same time, we are accelerating the internal process of signing the convention. I am convinced that it is to possess the right balance of innovation and regulation. Thank you. Wait a second, the connection has turned really bad. Sound and zoom is okay. So you can tell us what, yeah, okay. We’re having a little bit of a technical issue here. If you could repeat the last few sentences that you said because we have missed it, unfortunately.

Mr Thomas SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Well, we can’t hear you. We don’t hear anything. It’s just very faint, faint noise, but our 500 people technical team is already working on it. So. Um. I have to wait. Okay. Okay, thank you, Tetsushi. I think we’ve heard some elements from you, at least. There seems to be a problem that here in the room, we can’t hear you anymore. Maybe let’s use the time and we’re happy to take you back in the discussion. Let’s move on to Mr. Gibson. You may not have anything to do with the famous guitar brand, but you work for the UK government. So, yeah. In the UK, now that you signed the convention, how do you use the convention to also move things ahead on national level? And how are you seeing international cooperation thanks to the convention, but also in other frameworks? What are the UK’s plans for the coming months?

AUDIENCE: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Ambassador. Can people hear me? go ahead yeah people hear me yeah now we can really thank you very much thank you ambassador yes not not quite linked to the Gibson guitars I do get that and I do get Mel Gibson as my uncle but yeah I am yes and as to your question I think a good way of framing this is looking at starting off by considering the UK’s approach to air governance obviously we’ve had a government recently and we’re thinking about the opportunities of AI and really want to capitalize those as well in order to turbocharge economic growth and you know without a sort of sense of an understanding of the risks mitigating risks tackling key risks as well we won’t be in a position to fully capitalize or you know capture the full potential of the technology as well and so that’s the kind of key framing I think is really important when we go into discussing the Council Europe AI treaty as well as other international governance frameworks really understanding that working together cooperation and setting global baselines due to the transcendental cross-border nature of the technology is fundamental and really harnessing the potential of every sort of input from different countries civil society and the private sector as well whilst recognizing that in order to really capture the the benefits opportunity and harness innovation you need a technology that is trustworthy that those risks are understood that you can have that safe secure trustworthy AI and really capture that as well so I think that’s been a sort of key framing I think for us as well at the international level we’ve really not been able to highlight the it’s such an extent though but when the UK we sort of had the first AI safety summit in Bletchley that paved the way for a great deal of discussion on a lot of these risks and what we need to do to mitigate that. And in doing so, we were very keen to really reinforce in the Bletchley Declaration the importance of safe, secure, trustworthy AI and building that understanding of risk as well. With that in mind, we were also very keen to really harness the possibilities of securing innovation for that. And so bringing Frontier AI Labs and companies on board in that process has been really fundamental and really highlighting the importance of getting voluntary commitments, pushing the conversation along with a range of sectors to really ensure that the public and different sectors can buy into that technology. That has continued in other areas of international AI governance as well. We’ve really reflected this in the UN environment. So the Global Digital Compact, we really wanted to reinforce the importance of a multi-stakeholder input. In the UN resolutions, which were agreed in 2024, we wanted to really push that there were flexible and differentiated approaches. And that’s kind of reflective of the UK approach, that in order to get that trust, you need a proportionate approach to governance, and that’s a fundamental recognition. So you get the balance between innovation and safety. Coming to the Council of Europe specifically, though, I think this has been an opportunity for us to really reinforce the UK’s value add in the conversation. So we have taken a sort of very, reflecting on the proportionate amount, a balanced, targeted, agile approach to AI governance. So we look at things sort of sectorally in our regulatory approach at the moment. So allowing different regulators to engage with the technology and regulate technology in a sort of more light-touch approach, ensuring that these all work together and really harness the potential that way. However, we are thinking about sort of building on that and recognizing the role of innovation with our new Regulatory Innovation Office, with a model for responsible innovation, supporting the technology. And this is the sort of approach that we have reflected in the Council of Europe AI Treaty negotiations as well. well to bring us to that point. So the UK was really keen to reinforce the merits of balanced language, so ensuring that there is not too much prescription in the detail, so being too over prescriptive might make it a bit too challenging for a lot of different countries to get on board. So looking at the range of different countries here, I think we recognize that we want a range of different regulatory approaches to be recognized in the Council of Europe AI Treaty, and also reinforcing the importance of new and other countries who are a bit nascent in the regulatory approach to AI to come on board as well. However, I think the importance is balancing that with clarity, and we were really keen to push the point about clarity in text. These are some legal obligations, you know, involving human rights. We want to be really clear that people understand the technology, and that comes back to my point about trust. If you don’t trust, we can’t really capture the technology as well, and I think this was reflected in a couple of really interesting provisions in the convention as well. So a provision on safe innovation, another provision which ensured that research and development could be safeguarded, and wasn’t necessarily always fully in line, and making sure that that can be continued despite or in spite of it at the convention as well, but really making sure that’s crystal clear. And we wanted to make really clear that we could be a bridge as well as the UK, so talking about that proportionate approach to governance, we recognized that all these different regulatory approaches would be needed, and towards the end when it might have looked a little bit challenging to get agreement, we were really keen to be pragmatic, provide a sort of basis in bringing a group of people together on the sort of final throws in the 11th hour of the negotiations, to come together and find those areas of overlap on the more challenging areas, so how we could apply the convention and make sure we could get all the relevant countries on board so that this could be a successful global treaty. So we were really keen to really be pragmatic, to really reinforce those points about trust as well. well, and I think that’s reflective in our international AI governance approaches.

Mr Thomas SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much Mauricio, and indeed it was not easy, and hopefully we get a discussion, a few minutes for discussion also in the end. The idea to make something that holds across time with principles, but also to have it sufficiently clear, but not too over-perspective in detail, was and is not an easy task and will also be a challenge in implementing it. Now I wonder, we would have another very active participant, but apparently, Argentina is a country that was also very active, but apparently the connection somehow didn’t make it across the ocean, but just to say that Argentina would have been an example of one of the Latin American countries that have been participating, there were about 5 or 6 Latin American countries that were already doing the negotiation, active in the work on this treaty. But we’ll see whether we can connect to her later. So with this, we have gone through the panelists, unless I missed somebody, which doesn’t seem to be the case. So we could actually use a few minutes to also allow the people in the room and also online to make comments and questions. We have a mic here, so just stand up and make yourself heard if you want, and we’ll try to have some interaction also with the audience here. Yes, please present yourself and then continue. Well, thank you very much. My name is Dr. Rafael de Lis Aguirre, I’m at the Max Tilburg Center in Germany, and as a member of the scientific community and a developer, what impact do you foresee that such a treaty will have for us and our daily lives coding? Thank you. Thank you very much. This is a very good question. Any of you who wants to reply to this? Allison?

Allison PETERS: Well, thank you, first and foremost, for the question. I think I can only speak for my government, but I also know I speak for several governments here, which is that throughout the negotiation process, with big recognition of the fact that this is a legally binding convention, making sure that the technical community could actually participate and that we had on our delegation technical experts that were leading the negotiations was mission critical. I think for us, and I think my colleague from the UK spoke about this as well, making sure that we have a convention that is technically rigorous, that is practical, that is clear in terms of how it can be used, not just by governments, but also the technical community was really a big priority. I won’t talk about every single provision of the convention, but I think for you and colleagues in this space, you know, one of the key things that that we’re working on now is actually building out a risk assessment framework. And again, we talked, I think every one of the panelists talked about the fact that this convention would be really a sort of shared baseline in systems that may not have an AI risk assessment framework. So in the United States, we have our NIST Risk Management Framework, or RMF, as it’s known by the technical community, that actually helps us do assessments of AI systems and managing risks and putting then in place technically rigorous safeguards that could manage those risks. But other systems don’t have a NIST Risk Management Framework or don’t have risk management frameworks that necessarily harmonize across systems. And so we are actually working to negotiate a risk assessment framework that could be used across the board, whether that be by governments or individuals in the technical community. And if you’re not already tracking that process, we’d love to make sure that you are able to engage and that you’re able to follow the negotiations, because I think for folks like you, that’s gonna be a really important thing that we built out, known as the Huderia. And for us, again, making sure that that tool is technically rigorous, but also practical and interoperable across systems is really top priority in the current moment.

Mr Thomas SCHNEIDER: Yeah. I would just also, yeah, reinforcing everything my colleagues from the U.S. said. And I think another thing to touch upon is in the convention, there is a sort of, I think I touched upon it in my statement as well, but an exemption for research and development. So what that doesn’t mean is it just excludes all and every single form of research and development from the convention, but it creates a sort of a limitation and a safeguard. And in certain conditions, those undertaking certain R&D, which might impact human rights, can continue to do so with the necessary safeguards in place. So that was a really… hotly focused on area that we really try to invest a lot of time so we could make sure that people like in your community Have that space to continue doing things where there might be implications for human rights and Really continuing that as such so that’s a particular area which I think is important to highlight The same with the safe innovation space or creating a space for sandboxing and encouraging different regulations to engage in sandboxing which can Do things safely and in that space really creating the environment for that as well Just just to add to this one one comment and indeed one thing is to have some kind of Harmonization or at least interoperability on legal terms But then if you’re supposed to implement this and of course the convention Because it’s supposed to hold for a few years 10 hopefully 20 needs to be on a very general level And this is why this risk Implement Impact and risk assessment frameworks are so important and the second deliverable that the CHI this Council of Europe committee Is delivering is this Huderia the human rights democracy and rule of law risk and impact assessment methodology The key requirements on a very general level are part of the convention We’ve just adopted there what we call level two document Which is a 20 page guidance and non-binding a guidance document about how to do Risk and impact assessment and next year. We’ll be working on a much more detailed Document with questionnaires and so on they’re going into fairly detailed level in and this is the important thing in cooperation with the IEEE with I EEC the International Electoral Technical Committee with ISO so also to build the bridge between technical standardization institutions that Programmers are probably more familiar with to the legal standardization body, so that’s a very good question. Thank you very much. Thank you next

NIGEL CASIMIR: Hi Thank you Good day, I’m Nigel Casimir from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, and I’m wondering two things. One is, are there any arrangements for additional countries that might want to accede to this convention? And secondly, given that, you know, it was created, I heard a lot of talk about negotiations and so on, and first in the Caribbean, you know, we would think that the countries that got this thing started would basically be kind of like-minded, so I’m wondering, apart from the processes for additional countries to accede, are there any thoughts about, as additional countries come in, to make allowances for, I don’t know, adjustments to the treaty and that sort of thing? So I guess future processes in general.

Mr Thomas SCHNEIDER: David, thank you very much, Nigel, and good to see you. Very good question. Maybe one word. The Council of Europe has got nothing to do with the European Union. The Council of Europe, as was said, was like the UN of Europe, was created after the Second World War to try and bring peace in a sustainable way to Europe through securing human rights, democracy, and rule of law. It has no economic component, and it has 46 member states now, whereas the European Union, the members of the EU are all part of members of the Council of Europe. And the Council of Europe has this unique opportunity to not just develop soft law and hard law standards for its members, but it can also include others, other countries. We’ve already had 11 in the negotiations, and any member states, any country in the world that lives up to certain standards on human rights, democracy, and rule of law can become a part of the process. We have contact with a number of countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, that are in contact with the Council of Europe to become part of the process, also to keep working on the Huderia, but also to become a potential future party of the Convention. happy and if you turn around the tall man behind you is working for the Council of Europe, Vadim, he’s willing to get into contact with interested countries or stakeholders from other countries to actually broaden the basis and the example of the cybercrime treaty actually shows that, I don’t know the exact number, but the number of signature of parties is around 70, but the cooperation actually, one is to have a sign and ratify the convention, the other one is to cooperate around the process and there’s way more than a hundred countries that are in contact with the Council of Europe and at least take over some of the elements which helps to interoperability of legal systems and then also the implementation mechanisms across the world. So you’re very warmly invited to spread the message that this is a treaty that is open, that can be and countries can join to become part of the treaty but also to be a part of the wider process on cooperation and exchange of best practice. Yes, David?

AUDIENCE: Sorry about that. Nigel? Yes? Okay, good. Great, great to hear from you Nigel and everything he said plus one. I think the important element, at least from Canada’s perspective, is we were not a member of the Council of Europe so our participation was crucial simply because the concerns that Canadian legislative basis is different from Europe, is different from the EU, and so we had equities we obviously wanted to protect, values we wanted to bring forward in the process. I mean on a personal basis, would I have loved to have seen more observer states, more blocs, whether it be CARICOM or others, participate in the process, the negotiations? Absolutely, but we can’t change that. But what we did to make sure in the process the negotiation was to create a conference of the parties. And so this is sort of, once the treaty comes into force, which is a very low number of member-state signatories and ratifications, it’s an annual process for the members to, the members of the convention to come together and consider the treaty itself. It’s a multi-stakeholder forum, which means participation from the technical community, the civil society, private sector entities, to continue to review. Because inherently we understood that it’s very hard to create international legislation that is future-proof. And so in a sense, whether you are part of the negotiations or not, obviously down the road, you know, a member of CARICOM or CARICOM itself, I mean, being a part now and signing up allows you to be part of the ongoing dialogue. And I think the important element here is the treaty itself is very slim. It’s not very long. It’s not very detailed. It was about, you know, as the expression goes, it doesn’t matter what color the cat is as long as it catches mice. And what this treaty was trying to say is we were just trying to make sure we all understood what the cat should look like, not the color. The color is a national effort. And so, you know, Canada has very advanced regulatory regimes. It’s working on a piece of legislation. You know, other countries on this floor don’t even have legislation or, you know, frameworks are of a different nature. And so the whole point is whether you’re from Asia or from Africa or North America, as long as we adhere to basic principles, your cat can look very different, but as long as it’s still a cat. Thank you very much for this very good picture. Thank you. Next,

LINA VILTREKENE: please. Hello, my name is Lina Viltrekene and I am Lithuanian ambassador for digital economy. I would like to thank very much the Council of Europe, the chair and the panel for having this discussion on this first international treaty on artificial intelligence, human rights and democracy and rule of law. So I intentionally said the long name of the treaty. because the treaty was opened for signature in Vilnius, in my capital, and we are proudly calling this treaty as the Vilnius Convention. Proudly because it was also signed during the presidency of Lithuania to the Council of Europe, and it coincides very much with Lithuania’s priorities during that presidency, including strengthening democracies, including protecting human rights, but also including fighting disinformation. And I wanted to emphasize this important element in the context of indeed alarming rise of disinformation, which really undermines human rights, and particularly of those groups of society that are most vulnerable, like children, like seniors, like people with disabilities. So I just wanted also perhaps to raise a question, how do you see how the Convention could contribute to fighting disinformation, particularly AI-driven disinformation and harmful content online?

Mr Thomas SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much, and first of all, thank you, Lithuania, for your support, and we’re very happy throughout the process, also as a president of the Council of Europe during that period, also for organizing EuroDIG, the European IGF in Vilnius this year, so we’re very happy that this is going to be, the Convention is going to be known as the Vilnius Convention. On the question on disinformation, there’s one very general reference, which is very fundamental, but it remains on a very general level about states’ obligations to secure the functioning of democratic processes, and it doesn’t go much further. into detail, because this is very difficult. It’s also very different from from country to country how democratic processes are organized. So yeah, any short references maybe on how in your countries you deal with democracy? Maybe Isil from Turkey, do you have a…

AUDIENCE: Thank you. I just wanted to, I think you brought up a really important topic. Disinformation can definitely impact democratic processes and this is one of the things we’re trying to protect with this convention. And as our chair of CAI, previous chair of CAI has mentioned, this is a framework convention so it’s guiding the signatories to adopt measures or laws to prevent issues like this from happening. Well, as you correctly mentioned, the rise of disinformation can actually manipulate public opinion and in turn affect the democratic processes. So this can be something that can be developed by signatories in a more detailed manner in their own legal regimes, I believe. Thank you so much. I think this is one of the problems that your government, our government, we’re all facing this challenge of how AI changes the information environment. I’d first say that foreign interference, disinformation, these are not new challenges. These are long-standing issues. AI does supercharge the ability for actors to use tools. We’ve seen foreign states already using AI tools to conduct information operations in many countries. At the same time, we can overstate the risk of disinformation. We can sometimes see countries use the idea that disinformation… is prevalent to censor political speech so it’s a very careful balance to be struck in terms of saying yes there is a threat to democracy to democratic participation however there is also the risk that it is this this narrative is used to censor free speech so I think a really core obligation on us all is to build trust to build an ability for our societies to critique the information environment to be able to engage in information so that we’re not just believing stories that are out there but this is not an area that governments should dive in too deeply too quickly because I think there is a rush that it can it can be over corrected and in fact we can stifle the information environment in the desire to address this information thank you unfortunately 130 seconds for a listen because time is up we need to free the room I guess and also to the next one’s just 30 seconds I just really wanted to thank Lithuania for your leadership in allowing us to have the signing in your country and to come back to the point that Thomas started with while this is not a dedicated convention on AI exacerbating disinformation or broader information integrity around the globe it does deal with the use of AI systems by public sector actors meaning governments right and so it to the point that Ambassador Dowling made on this delicate balance between both addressing risks of artificial intelligence and safeguarding fundamental freedoms I think we strike that right balance overall in this convention and coming back to the point where we all started I mean this is a shared baseline so as we look to the UN system other multilateral systems where governments are perhaps not striking that right balance and debates around disinformation and broader information integrity having this shared understanding is going to be mission critical as we take forward those negotiations in those systems so while it’s not exclusively dealing with issues around information manipulation I think it’s certainly quite critical that we have this shared understanding to start.

Mr Thomas SCHNEIDER: start just finish with one reference to an online question about the relationship or how the Council of Europe treaty can be useful to the bigger global UN environment also helping to implement the provisions from the GDC this is something we’ll have more more sessions on GDC so you’re very happy also to to think about how this convention can contribute to implementing the GDC and as Alison has said and many others have said this is a baseline it this convention will need to be and is already complemented by other more specific soft and hard law that follows the logic of the convention so currently for instance that the Council of Europe does work on the impact of generative AI on freedom of expression on on democratic deliberations in a country this is just one example, so thank you very much for your attention. Yeah, we’ll look forward also to engaging again with countries that are not yet part of the process. You’re very happy to come to me or to Vadim or to anyone that you’ve seen here on the panel. We’re all very, very eager to connect with countries that we are not yet connected about the convention. Thank you very much and enjoy the rest of the day online or offline, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of the AI treaty as the first legally binding international agreement

Mr Thomas SCHNEIDER

Allison PETERS

First legally binding international treaty on AI

Sets a shared baseline for rights-respecting AI development

Speakers agree on the significance of the AI treaty as the first legally binding international agreement, setting a shared baseline for AI governance.

Balancing innovation and safeguards in AI development

AUDIENCE

Allison PETERS

Balances innovation and safeguards for human rights

Harmonizing various international approaches to AI

Speakers emphasize the importance of striking a balance between fostering AI innovation and protecting human rights and democratic values.

International cooperation and alignment of AI governance

Mr Thomas SCHNEIDER

Allison PETERS

AUDIENCE

Open for participation from countries worldwide

Creating mechanisms for shared cooperation and best practices

Aligning national AI regulations with international frameworks

Speakers agree on the importance of international cooperation and aligning national AI regulations with global frameworks to ensure consistent AI governance.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for flexibility in AI governance approaches, allowing for adaptations as more countries join the treaty and as AI technology evolves.

AUDIENCE

NIGEL CASSIMIRE

Adopting a balanced and targeted approach to AI governance

Potential for future adjustments as new countries join

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of ongoing review and adaptation of the treaty

AUDIENCE

NIGEL CASSIMIRE

Ongoing review and updates through Conference of Parties

Potential for future adjustments as new countries join

Despite representing different perspectives (a government representative and an external observer), both speakers agree on the importance of allowing the treaty to evolve over time. This unexpected consensus highlights a shared recognition of the rapidly changing nature of AI technology and the need for governance frameworks to adapt accordingly.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of the AI treaty as a first legally binding international agreement, the need to balance innovation with safeguards, and the significance of international cooperation in AI governance. There is also consensus on the need for flexibility and ongoing adaptation of the treaty.

Consensus level

There appears to be a high level of consensus among the speakers on the fundamental principles and goals of the AI treaty. This strong agreement suggests a shared commitment to establishing effective global AI governance while respecting national differences. The consensus implies that the treaty has a strong foundation for implementation and future development, although specific details of national implementation may vary.

Different Viewpoints

Balance between innovation and regulation

Allison PETERS

AUDIENCE

Harmonizing various international approaches to AI

Adopting a balanced and targeted approach to AI governance

While both speakers emphasize the importance of balancing innovation and regulation, they differ in their approaches. Allison PETERS focuses on harmonizing international approaches, while the AUDIENCE speaker (representing the UK) advocates for a more targeted, sector-specific approach.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to implementing the AI treaty and balancing innovation with regulation.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the fundamental principles and goals of the AI treaty, with minor differences in implementation strategies. This suggests a generally unified approach to AI governance, which is likely to facilitate the treaty’s adoption and implementation across different countries.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need to protect human rights while fostering AI innovation. However, they differ in their emphasis, with Allison PETERS focusing on establishing a shared baseline, while the AUDIENCE speaker (representing various countries) highlights the need for flexibility in national approaches.

Allison PETERS

AUDIENCE

Sets a shared baseline for rights-respecting AI development

Balances innovation and safeguards for human rights

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for flexibility in AI governance approaches, allowing for adaptations as more countries join the treaty and as AI technology evolves.

AUDIENCE

NIGEL CASSIMIRE

Adopting a balanced and targeted approach to AI governance

Potential for future adjustments as new countries join

Key Takeaways

The AI treaty is the first legally binding international agreement on AI, setting a shared baseline for rights-respecting AI development.

The treaty aims to balance innovation with safeguards for human rights, democracy, and rule of law.

It is open for participation from countries worldwide, not just Council of Europe members.

Countries are taking varied approaches to implementing the treaty and aligning it with national AI regulations.

International cooperation and multi-stakeholder input are crucial for effective AI governance.

The treaty is designed to be flexible and adaptable as AI technology evolves.

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop more detailed risk assessment frameworks for AI systems

Continue efforts to broaden participation in the treaty beyond current signatories

Work on aligning national AI regulations with the treaty’s principles

Establish a Conference of Parties for ongoing review and updates to the treaty

Unresolved Issues

Specific mechanisms for combating AI-driven disinformation while protecting free speech

Detailed implementation strategies for different national contexts

How to ensure the treaty remains relevant as AI technology rapidly advances

Balancing prescriptiveness of the treaty with flexibility for innovation

Suggested Compromises

Creating exemptions for research and development to allow innovation while maintaining safeguards

Adopting a general framework in the treaty while allowing for more detailed national regulations

Balancing clear legal obligations with flexibility for different regulatory approaches

Using a risk-based approach to determine the level of regulation needed for different AI applications

We all see the upsides of AI. We all see the benefits for development, for economic opportunity. But with every new phase of digital technology, we’ve seen human rights, the rights of women and girls, the rights of freedom of speech, democracy jeopardised.

speaker

Ambassador Dowling

reason

This comment succinctly captures the core tension at the heart of AI governance – balancing innovation and opportunity with protection of rights and democracy.

impact

It set the tone for much of the subsequent discussion, with many speakers referring back to this balance between innovation and safeguards.

We don’t want to do anything as it relates to regulation that cracks down on innovation, doesn’t allow that innovation to happen, and so certainly, with this convention, we see a convention that allows us to harmonize various different international approaches to AI, and one that still allows companies to innovate, to be creative, to create new AI systems that help really advance the opportunities as it relates to AI, but also help crack down on some of those risks that we’re talking about.

speaker

Allison Peters

reason

This comment articulates a key goal of the treaty – to create a harmonized international approach that protects rights while still enabling innovation.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards how the treaty aims to strike this balance in practice, leading to more detailed explanations of specific provisions.

It’s not the UN, but at the same time we felt it was extremely important to try to get as many member states from as many regions involved in the process. And so throughout the nearly two years of negotiation we saw a gradual increase not only in the number of participants but in fact signatories, hopefully at the end of the day.

speaker

Mr. Fairchild

reason

This highlights the importance of broad international participation, even for a treaty originating from a European body.

impact

It led to further discussion about how the treaty aims to be globally relevant and applicable beyond just Europe.

Turkey’s unique position, geopolitical and geostrategic position influences its approach to global AI governance. That’s why we have been actively monitoring and participating in international efforts.

speaker

Isil Denemec

reason

This comment introduces the perspective of how a country’s specific geopolitical context shapes its approach to AI governance.

impact

It broadened the discussion to consider how different national contexts might influence implementation of the treaty.

In the convention, there is a sort of, I think I touched upon it in my statement as well, but an exemption for research and development. So what that doesn’t mean is it just excludes all and every single form of research and development from the convention, but it creates a sort of a limitation and a safeguard.

speaker

Mr. Gibson

reason

This comment provides insight into a specific, important provision of the treaty that balances innovation with safeguards.

impact

It led to a more detailed discussion of how the treaty aims to practically balance innovation and protection in its specific provisions.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by consistently returning to the central theme of balancing innovation with protection of rights and democracy. They highlighted the treaty’s aim to be globally relevant, adaptable to different national contexts, and practically implementable. The discussion evolved from broad principles to more specific provisions and implementation challenges, while maintaining a focus on international cooperation and harmonization of approaches.

How can the risk assessment framework for AI systems be developed and implemented across different countries?

speaker

Allison Peters

explanation

This is important for creating a shared baseline for assessing AI risks and implementing safeguards across different regulatory systems.

How can the convention contribute to fighting AI-driven disinformation and harmful content online?

speaker

Lina Viltrakiene

explanation

This is crucial given the alarming rise of disinformation that undermines human rights, particularly for vulnerable groups.

How can the convention be used to implement provisions from the Global Digital Compact (GDC)?

speaker

Online participant (unnamed)

explanation

Understanding this relationship is important for aligning international efforts on AI governance.

How can the convention be adapted or adjusted as additional countries join?

speaker

Nigel Cassimire

explanation

This is important for ensuring the convention remains relevant and inclusive as it expands beyond its initial signatories.

What impact will the treaty have on the daily lives of AI developers and coders?

speaker

Dr. Rafael de Lis Aguirre

explanation

Understanding the practical implications for the technical community is crucial for effective implementation of the treaty.

How can the convention balance addressing AI risks while safeguarding fundamental freedoms like free speech?

speaker

Ambassador Dowling

explanation

This balance is critical for ensuring the convention protects democracy without enabling censorship.

Summary

This discussion focused on the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance, exploring its applicability, challenges, and future prospects. The panelists examined how the multi-stakeholder approach varies across different policy areas and contexts. They emphasized that while there is no one-size-fits-all model, the core principles of inclusivity, transparency, and accountability should be maintained.

The conversation highlighted the need for careful design of multi-stakeholder processes to address specific issues effectively. Panelists discussed the concept of “multi-stakeholder disguise” or tokenism, where processes claim to be multi-stakeholder but lack meaningful engagement or impact. They stressed the importance of not just soliciting input, but also demonstrating how that input influences decisions and outcomes.

The maturity of multi-stakeholder models was explored, with Avri Doria presenting a framework for evaluating the depth of stakeholder involvement, from basic consultation to full implementation and oversight. Participants noted that the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder approaches can vary depending on the issue at hand and the context in which they are applied.

Looking to the future, the panelists agreed that the multi-stakeholder model remains crucial for addressing complex internet governance issues. However, they emphasized the need for continued refinement and analysis of these models to ensure they genuinely serve their intended purpose. The discussion concluded with a call for more research into the effectiveness of various multi-stakeholder approaches and the importance of maintaining good faith participation from all involved parties.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The applicability and implementation of multi-stakeholder models varies across different policy areas and contexts

– There is a need to evaluate and analyze multi-stakeholder processes to ensure they are meaningful and not just “tokenism”

– The maturity and effectiveness of multi-stakeholder approaches depends on factors like participant selection, roles/responsibilities, and accountability

– Multi-stakeholder models are still evolving and need further development, but are seen as important for inclusive policymaking

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to examine the current state and future of multi-stakeholder governance models in internet policy, exploring how they can be effectively implemented across diverse issues and contexts.

Tone:

The tone was largely analytical and constructive, with speakers critically examining multi-stakeholder approaches while still affirming their overall value. There was general agreement on the need to further develop and refine these models. The tone became slightly more cautionary near the end when discussing challenges like bad faith participation, but remained overall optimistic about the future potential of multi-stakeholder governance.

Speakers

– KEISUKE KAMIMURA: Moderator, from Center for International Economic Cooperation on Internet Governance

– AVRI DORIA: Expert on multi-stakeholder models and evaluation frameworks

– AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Expert from India

– LILLIAN NALWOGA: Expert from Uganda/Africa

– JIM PRENDERGAST: Galway Strategy Group

Additional speakers:

– Audience member from Japan

– Audience member (unnamed) who commented on stakeholder roles

Multi-stakeholder Models in Internet Governance: Applicability, Challenges, and Future Prospects

This discussion, moderated by Keisuke Kamimura from the Center for International Economic Cooperation on Internet Governance, explored the current state and future of multi-stakeholder governance models in internet policy. The session was organized by a research group studying the applicability of multi-stakeholder models to various policy areas, providing important context for the dialogue.

Applicability and Implementation

The panel examined the diversity and applicability of multi-stakeholder models across different policy areas. Contrary to the initial summary, Kamimura expressed skepticism about whether these models could be equally applied to all policy areas, suggesting that multiple different models might be needed for various issues.

Avri Doria, an expert on multi-stakeholder models, emphasized that there is no one-size-fits-all approach, highlighting the adaptability of these models to different contexts. Amrita Choudhury, an expert from India, provided a concrete example of this adaptability, noting that multi-stakeholder models have proven applicable to digital economy issues, contrary to initial doubts.

Lillian Nalwoga, an expert from Uganda, introduced the concept of deploying multi-stakeholder approaches at different levels depending on maturity. She also highlighted the challenges of implementing these models in developing countries, where resources and expertise may be limited.

Evaluation and Maturity of Multi-stakeholder Processes

Avri Doria presented a detailed framework for assessing multi-stakeholder processes based on orientation, participants, and roles/responsibilities. She outlined maturity levels ranging from consultation to implementation and oversight, providing a structured approach to understanding the depth of stakeholder involvement. This framework included:

1. Consultative level: Stakeholders are consulted but have limited influence.

2. Cooperative level: Stakeholders work together but don’t make final decisions.

3. Collaborative level: Stakeholders are involved in decision-making processes.

4. Implementation level: Stakeholders participate in implementing decisions.

5. Oversight level: Stakeholders are involved in monitoring and evaluation.

The speakers emphasized the crucial role of transparency and accountability in ensuring meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement. Jim Prendergast from the Galway Strategy Group stressed that meaningful multi-stakeholderism requires feedback on how input was used, highlighting the importance of demonstrating the impact of stakeholder contributions.

Challenges and Improvements

The discussion addressed several challenges in implementing multi-stakeholder governance. Kamimura raised concerns about “multi-stakeholder disguise” or tokenism, where processes claim to be multi-stakeholder but lack genuine engagement or impact.

Amrita Choudhury stressed the importance of inclusivity and consideration of diverse stakeholders for effective multi-stakeholder processes. An audience member emphasized the need for clearly defined roles and responsibilities for each stakeholder, particularly in decision-making processes.

The panel also discussed the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines, which were referenced multiple times as a potential framework for improving multi-stakeholder processes.

Future Prospects and Global Digital Compact

Looking to the future, the panelists discussed the relevance of multi-stakeholder models to the Global Digital Compact (GDC), a UN initiative aimed at outlining shared principles for an open, free, and secure digital future. The speakers agreed on the continued importance of multi-stakeholder models in addressing complex internet governance issues, while acknowledging the need for ongoing development and refinement.

Avri Doria called for deeper analysis of these models and raised an important challenge: protecting multi-stakeholder processes against bad faith actors. Lillian Nalwoga outlined key focus areas for future multi-stakeholder processes, including transparency, inclusion, and accountability, particularly in the context of developing countries.

Conclusion

The discussion concluded with a nuanced view of multi-stakeholder models in internet governance, recognizing both their potential value and the challenges in their implementation. Key takeaways included the need for adaptability of these models to various contexts, the importance of transparency and accountability, and the necessity for ongoing development and protection against misuse.

Kamimura mentioned an upcoming dialogue on multi-stakeholder measurement, indicating continued efforts to refine and evaluate these models. As the internet governance landscape continues to evolve, the effective implementation and continuous improvement of multi-stakeholder approaches remain crucial for addressing complex global challenges in the digital realm.

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: as follows. Does the multi-stakeholder model equally fit each of these policy areas? Or are we going to have somewhat multiple different models in dealing with the range of policy issues? And if we have multiple multi-stakeholder models, how can we make multi-stakeholder governance work across the broad range of policy issues? So that’s the basic outline of this session. But let me give you some brief overview of the project behind. As I mentioned, our session is based on the discussion or analysis conducted by the research group under the Center for International Economic Cooperation on Internet Governance. So let me give you some introduction of the project. The research group is a multi-stakeholder group of experts and academics on internet governance research and practice based in Japan. We have members from the government and the private sector, technical community and academia. So we are discussing, the group has discussed this issue for a while since last September, October. And we looked at the changes of the internet governance landscape over the last 20 plus years. Japan hosted IGF last year, so we produced an official report on IGF 2023. Actually later this week, we have a lightning talk session featuring the report booklet on IGF 2023. So if you are on site, please jump in and see what the report looks like. And we also did a comment contribution to WSIS Plus 20 review. And we also examined GDC draft texts and considered its impact on internet governance and its future forecast. We also conducted a session in APR IGF 2024 in Taipei. Our session was titled multi-stakeholderism in the post-GDC era. So during this activity, we came to some kind of, some sense of understanding or conclusion that applicability of multi-stakeholder models may vary depending on the policy areas in question, and needs to be evaluated on a set of criteria so that we can see how effectively multi-stakeholder models work or work or not. So that was the brief overview of the project behind this session. And I talked about the multi-stakeholder concept is referred in a diverse context. Let me give you, let me take GDC as an example. In the GDC, there are a number of references made to the term multi-stakeholder. One example is multi-stakeholder, our cooperation will be multi-stakeholder in paragraph A, K. Or in paragraph 17A, we are going to develop, disseminate, and maintain through multi-stakeholder cooperation. In terms of the digital divide, we have another reference to multi-stakeholder, the term multi-stakeholder in paragraph 27, internet governance. And so the references go on like this. And multi-stakeholder initiatives are also mentioned in paragraph 31A, digital trust and safety. So multi-stakeholder, and there are a number of other references to multi-stakeholder in other policy areas, interoperable data governance, artificial intelligence, and follow-up and review. So we, the term multi-stakeholder is one, but the contexts where the term is referred to are quite diverse. So that’s one point we came to realize. I also mentioned that we have a broad range of policy areas being discussed in the DDC, or broader internet governance context now. In the DDC text, we have connectivity, digital literacy, skills and capacities, digital public goods, and digital public infrastructure. And the list goes to interoperable data governance and artificial intelligence. So we refer to multi-stakeholder models or multi- stakeholder approach in this quite a broad range of policy areas. So even if we say, even if we agreed on the term multi-stakeholder, the actual implementations or adaptability may be quite different. So let me summarize our outcomes of the research group on internet governance. One is expanding scope. So we consider we need multi-stakeholder model because we have fast-changing policy areas. And those policy areas directly affect the life and behavior of people. But with expanding scope, multi-stakeholder model may work better for some issues and not for others. That’s one of our concerns. Another concern is multi-stakeholder disguise. Multi-stakeholder models may take various forms. In idealistic form, multi-stakeholder model may mean multi- stakeholder participation, multi-stakeholder decision-making, and multi-stakeholder implementation. But in some cases, multi-stakeholder may just stop at consultation. So we have to take care of what we call multi-stakeholder disguise. Expanding participation is another concern we considered. For multi-stakeholder models to be fully effective, we have engagement of smaller voices or the voices of the influenced. But how far does participation engagement go? How far should they go? So that’s another concern we have. And if we have multiple multi-stakeholder models, we better have core principles, principles such as inclusion and bottom-up structure. These principles should always be in place while other principles may not. So we may have core principles for multi-stakeholder models, but we also have non-core principles. And finally, long-term goals. What do we want multi-stakeholder models for? from the summary of the discussion we had in the research group on Internet Governance. So we have to evaluate multi-stakeholder models in some way or the other. One way is to look at it from a process point of view. NetMundial plus ten multi-stakeholder statement is one of the guidelines that we can use for evaluating multi-stakeholder readiness of a policy process. For maturity levels, which is presented by Avery Doria, one of today’s speakers, we can look at the multi-stakeholderness of a process from this perspective. There are other researchers presenting evaluation framework for multi-stakeholder models, Palladino and Santanielo, or Pandey, Muller, and Vardy. We realize that people are becoming aware of the necessity to evaluate across different multi-stakeholder models. This is one of the issues we want to discuss further today, but we are also concerned that there should be other elements in evaluating multi-stakeholder models. The works I just mentioned look more of the multi-stakeholder model from a process point of view, but we thought there should be other elements we need to consider in evaluating multi-stakeholder models applicability. One such element is the characteristics of a policy issue in question. Take digital literacy for example, it is very likely that we need multi-stakeholder model, but there are some areas where multi-stakeholder model may not work effectively or efficiently. Digital trust and safety are seemingly less likely that multi-stakeholder model is fully applied and digital economy, I honestly don’t know how MSM, multi-stakeholder model, works. So, even if we are agreed on that we need multi-stakeholder models, there are quite different implementations or applicabilities out there. This is what we want to discuss today. This is the key question. This is the brief overview of the session. I would like to invite Avery Doria, who has done a series of works on the evaluation or maturity level of the multi-stakeholder models. So Avery, you have the floor.

AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I need to share my slides. I think you need to see, yeah, okay, no. Let me see. Okay. And share. Okay. I’m going to talk a little bit about multi-stakeholders. I’m doing a little bit more than just the model because I need to sort of work my way to the model and what it consists of. First, I want to say thank you very much for inviting me to talk about this. Thank you very much for the introduction. And while I may quibble with you about some of the things that you’ve said in the introduction, I very much appreciate it. For example, I tend to believe that a form of the multi-stakeholder model can be used just about anywhere a group of people need to make decisions together. I tend to think that we’re never in a situation of all or nothing in terms of the model. So let me move on to my first slide. Okay. So part of what brought me to this discussion and the context in which I started looking at it was this sort of tussle, this dichotomy. Are we working in multilateral? Are we working in multi-stakeholder? Are there issues that can only be dealt with in a multilateral method? Can multi-stakeholder be used? Do multilateral and multi-stakeholder methodologies, modalities ever work together? Or are they completely incompatible? And basically, this is also part of the question that the Sao Paolo multi-stakeholder guidelines look at it. And sort of sometimes you hear people talk about, well, there really being, you know, continuums in discussions. But you would also hear people that were quite angrily when a multilateral group tried to do a little bit of, you know, stakeholder discussion or stakeholder opening, you know, people would say, no, no, no, that’s not multi-stakeholder because it’s only comments. It’s only, you know, and that sort of rang a bell with me and sort of said, no, if a multilateral process manages to reach out and to stakeholders and start including them, that’s something we need to encourage. We need to understand it. We need to understand its limitations. So anyhow, the two methods are, you know, rather different. The multilateral is sort of the very formal negotiations, whether they’re bilateral, trilateral, multilateral. They work on a basis of full consensus. There’s ratification. Whereas within a multi-stakeholder approach, and that seems to be a word that’s being used a lot, you find that each group that does them, while they’re working on similar principles, tends to develop a different set of modalities, a different set of ways of doing it, diverse decision-making procedures. And this way of doing things has, sometimes we spend almost as much time, I think, talking about the difference between multilateral processes and multi-stakeholder processes as we do actually talking about the specific issues. But anyhow, we have, you know, ICANN, the IGF is a multi-stakeholder body, the IETF, the Internet Engineering Task Force, and the Regional Internet Registry is the RIR. They all have very rich multi-stakeholder models, and yet they’re all somewhat different. And so when you start looking at how do I build something with a multi-stakeholder model or how do I apply multi-stakeholder modalities to the multilateral model, there’s a lot of issues to look at. That’s one of the places where the San Paolo multi-stakeholder guidelines also comes in useful, because they look at modalities, they encourage the notion of application of some multi-stakeholder modalities within a multilateral environment. So it becomes something that has a set of guidelines for how these two very different and constantly tussling models can actually work together. So just a brief slide on this. I will not go into these in deadlines. You know, the NetMundial in 2014 laid out a set of principles, multi-stakeholder, open, participatory, consensus-driven, et cetera. And these have really held through. You know, nobody looks at this list of attributes and sort of says, well, no, that’s not what multi-stakeholder is about. That’s not what Internet governance is about. But what they did put together is a set of guidelines and process steps for how these two very different and constantly tussling models can actually work together. to do it. And I really recommend reading it. And it’s section 3.2 of Netmundial plus 10, which for several pages goes through and gives a set of recommendations. I’ve also really gotten into word art today. I actually took section 3.2 and did that little piece of word art with it. And just, you know, I kind of like the whole idea of a rainbow bridging But anyhow, moving on. So then, so we have people that said, I’m doing something multistakeholder. You’re not doing something multistakeholder. So how do then we deal with it? And that’s where I go back to sort of a definition of multistakeholderism, where it’s the study and practice of various models, approaches, forms of participatory, open and accessible, as human centered efforts. And it is something where many models, there isn’t one model, there isn’t the notion of one model that fits all. As long as you are delivering on these principles, then the model matters less than the fact that you are using some set of techniques to achieve that. So basically, there’s a large set of models and modalities. But when you start then comparing them and looking into them, it’s sort of taking the multistakeholder model. And what we often do is hand wave about it. We sort of say, yes, it’s multistakeholder because, well, because the stakeholders are there and they’re participating. Whereas, taking down to the next level of analysis is start looking at various aspects. I picked three aspects here for an example, but other aspects are quite possible, you know, and like methods of selecting participants, funding methods, geographical, cultural. But the three I’m focusing on at the beginning are orientation. Is your model a bottom-up model, a top-down model, one of those start in the middle and then, you know, do a little bit of up and a little bit of down? Any of those can be used to build a multistakeholder model. They don’t all need to be bottom-up. However, each one of them is going to give you a slightly different model. So being aware of the orientation of the model you look at becomes critical. The next part is participants, the stakeholders, you know, and by the way, we call them stakeholders. There are people that love that term. There are people that hate that term. Basically, this whole notion of calling it multistakeholder is really something that came about during WSIS time. But people have been experimenting, you know, with various forms of this model all the way through the 20th century, and it wasn’t just in internet. You find various usages of the model in different, or the approach in different topics. But when we look at stakeholders, even in our own area, you know, we have the Tunis Agenda, GDC, et cetera, way of bringing in stakeholders and identifying them, you know, there are three, there are four, et cetera. There’s affinity groupings where people of a similar interest gather together to work on a problem, but they have different, you know, whether it’s the plumbers and the electricians, they have different affinities, they look at the world differently, and therefore they bring different approaches. And you have some that organize organizations, and only organizations are members, and others, individuals in the engineering task force. I very much see it as a multistakeholder organization with this umbrella definition, and it’s individuals. It’s not organizations. It’s not memberships and such. So, looking at that, and any time you’re creating a new organization with a multistakeholder model, you have to look at your stakeholders. You have to look at your participants and think about how you organize them, because that will give you a different looking model. And then finally, in this three aspect, there’s the roles and responsibilities. Can you contribute? In other words, can you contribute text? Can you contribute ideas? And are they accepted and used? These all, or are you part of the decision-making processes? Just make recommendations, advice, and you look at any project, you’ll find at different phases of a project, the stakeholders may have different roles. They may have different responsibilities. You can’t look at a large model and say, in total, those are the deciders, and those are, because at different phases of the model, that may come out differently. Finally, getting myself to the maturity models. So, let’s say you’ve done many of these aspect studies, and you start to have an idea of the structure and the understanding. So, then I started looking at, since I didn’t want to exclude someone from multistakeholder modalities, simply because all they did was solicit comments, and then actually consider them. Because soliciting comments and ignoring them, I tend to leave out, and we have seen some examples of that lately. So, that may be a concern. But comments that are really solicited and are considered is really one of the bases on which almost any multistakeholder model and maturity has to be built. But then you move up, and are there standing charter advisory groups who have roles and responsibilities, who give advice, who do analysis, who propose solutions, etc.? Is that something that’s in the norm, that’s in the fixed structure of the organization, the model you’re looking at? Then you get to decision making. Who makes the decision? What role does a stakeholder group have in decision making? And it isn’t just who is the final decider, but decision making is a larger process. And there may be other parts where people contribute to the decision making process, even if they are not voting on it at the very end. But then it goes beyond that. Once you’ve made a decision, and you’ve gone that, and then some group or other goes to implement it, goes to deploy it, goes to take it out into the world and sort of do something, is it being done consistently? Is the decision that was made by one group of people being followed through? Does it work? Does it not work? Does it need to be changed? And then finally, another piece in the maturity is you’ve put all this together. You’ve got comments, you’ve got committees, you’ve got decision making, and you’ve even got implementation reviews. Who has responsibility for oversight of reviewing your model, your approach, and making sure that it works, that makes sure that it makes sense? Is it a bottom-up oversight where the stakeholders themselves are the ones that are doing that? Or is there some sort of deus ex machia, some superior, some UN General Assembly that’s doing the oversight of review and such? So when I’m starting to look at that, and then I start to look at how the various aspects in the previous slide sort of feed into these maturity levels is the way I’ve started looking. So we’re not in a situation that says I’m multi-stakeholder, you’re not. But we start looking at our various levels of maturity within these models and how we can sort of move to a greater maturity in multi-stakeholder models. And I think that’s it. So thank you for letting me go through that rather quickly. These are slides I could spend hours on or just a few minutes I’ve spent/

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: Thank you, Avery. So I would like to draw the reflections of the panel. Amrita, would you take, give you some comments on my tone setting or comments by Avery?

AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Yeah, I hope I’m audible now. So yes, I completely agree with what Avery said, and I think she said most of what we would want to say, as in there is no, the multi-stakeholder model has different forms. It can be used in different ways and there is no one size that fits all. And it is practiced in different ways, in different levels. It could be at the consultative phases. It could also be at decision making or even implementation. what needs to be seen is are the right stakeholders there. It doesn’t mean everyone has to be there but the people who are relevant needs to be there. One of the comments which you made initially is, is it applicable to digital economy? Yes it is. For example, if you’re looking at payments which is an integral part of the digital economy, how it is even at the grassroots level the payments are working, whether people are literate and I come from India where digital payments are used, even illiterate people are using. Are they able to use it safely, securely or easily in their own languages that matters. If you don’t take the feedback from them, even if you design it the best of solutions, it’s not going to work. It cannot just be multilateral and I presume it is not applicable in all spheres because we need to go back and see why different stakeholders or participants are necessary because internet today affects each and every one in different ways. So till the time you do not have different people coming and speaking, it’s difficult. For example in AI, there may be software technologists sitting and planning it but if you want the rights perspectives, the privacy by design, the human rights aspect to be built into those systems, you need those kind of people in the room. You also need to have other people, for example the sustainability of people who are looking at energy consumption etc in the room. Obviously you need government, you need social activists or civil society else how would you build a model which is impacting us in a huge way to take care of those things because if you don’t take care of the risks earlier, you will not be able to take care of it later. Similarly when you’re talking about trust and safety, yes security experts can do it, law enforcement can use it but even if at the individual user level you don’t understand what the issues are, you will not be able to take care. Simple example, you have online gaming, children are playing it. You may want to regulate them but do you know what actual issues are or where they are playing it. For example if people who are actually playing games are not there when these discussions happen on digital trust and safety, just governments or regulators taking the decisions may not give the results which you would actually want and obviously you know there was a question I don’t know on the maturity markets. It again depends. There are developing countries who have leapfrogged into technology. For them coming into the conversation, it may take a more longer time to make it more inclusive. For example if I take an example in India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has consultations on all their aspects. They have consultations, they put it up transparently on the website and then finally take you know they give their directions or recommendations. But again if we look at some discussions like we had for a data privacy regulation, we had a consultative phase. However how it was used was never known. So I would say even in South Asia it depends upon the maturity of the country or market because they’re still grappling with other issues so it may take time. But I think the Sao Paulo guiding principles are essential. It also gives a checklist to multilateral organizations on what they need to look at if they want to make it more inclusive and they also have it on how the multi-stakeholder processes, what checklist they need to have and they have the process steps also like scoping the issue better, identifying who the relevant stakeholder for that discussion is, engaging them, sharing information because not everyone may be at the same level or even facilitating a dialogue after discussing, sharing it with people. So I think it has 12 such process steps which could be a good, I would say reference point for everyone to look. But yes it cannot be a one-size-fits-all for everything but it is definitely necessary in today’s digital economy.

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: Thank you, Emerita. Now we have Lilian. Do you have your views on this? Can you

LILLIAN NALWOGA: I have a bit of some true thoughts on your presentation and probably in agreement with what Avri just presented, especially relating to say Africa or Uganda. But just a reflection is I think in one of your, in one of the questions that you raised, one of the points that you mentioned that the multi-stakeholder model works for some issues and not others. I’m a bit, I think also Emerita’s mentioned that. I think I’m slightly in disagreement because if we are looking at the digital space there are quite different issues that come into play. So especially the one that you raised on digital economy and I think Emerita has mentioned some bits of that. So I think depending on the maturity level or the different pockets that Avri has mentioned, I think it should be able to work but the context kind of differs. The other thing that I wanted to point on is the multi-stakeholder disguise. Kind of interesting how you framed it and I like the question, I mean you put the disguise in quotes and this we kind of see it happen a lot where to some it is more of if there’s a consultation then with the multi-stakeholder you know model you know has been affected and this is something that I really find a bit disturbing. But looking at the presentations from Avri on the maturity levels, who starts the process you know is it top, bottom or you know starts you know in the middle, where do we draw the line to say to conclude that this indeed has been a multi-stakeholder kind of you know approach that has been you know taken. So in Africa and in many countries in Africa we have the issue of the multi-stakeholder disguise where you have a few you know kind of a entities or groups for instance let’s say there’s an issue or developing a kind of you know a policy kind of document you’ll find that the policymaker will invite probably to let’s for instance say it is around say cyber security you’ll find that you may have just two entities represented in the initial you know drafting process of say this document. You find the government, you find maybe the private sector, someone in the banking sector and representative from maybe academia and then this will be consultative and fast-forward the policy to be kind of you know adopted. So again when we look at the broader multi-stakeholder model and we say that this is you know the multi-stakeholder you know this is was really a very well conclusive approach. So I think we are seeing lots of this multi-stakeholder disguise and I think if we go back to what Avri may have listed then we may need to rethink on who constitutes to be on the table for us to say that you know multi-stakeholderism has been applied. Reacting also to the other the very first I think in your presentation that you know the selective yes I think I’ve mentioned that. Yes there’s a bit of selectiveness especially if the initial the issue at hand is may consider you know may may bring some tension you know within the within the different actors. So you’ll find like you said digital economy may not may not be needed for you know Mr. Calder approach. So this kind of you know whoever is leading this process that kind of you know looking at it policy issue you know we select this to leave that. But I think that is really something that needs to be put into consideration. It’s a wrong approach, and we are seeing this happening in most of the African countries, even my country where I come from, Uganda. Last but not least, I would like to say that from what captured my mind was in the presentation I’ve mentioned, the different processes and where do we put this all together. The multilateral kind of processes where you see the ITU being active versus those that are pushing for multistakeholder governance model, the ICANNs, the IJF, and all that. The participation we see of certain actors tends to go much in the treaty kind of processes. In most cases, these are kind of selective. They are addressing certain issues. For instance, if you see now the way ITU, maybe we’re seeing so many of our countries in Africa being more present, more active in ITU processes than in these other kind of say WSIS, IJF, ICANN, there’s little of that kind of how do you draw the line. So where is that mix? I think there was some kind of an infinity symbol, how do we put this all together and constitute not to just addressing policy issues one by one. So I have a feeling that this is something we are from where, from Uganda or from Africa, we still are at the point of consultative kind of model maturity. Yes, we have a few consultations. We have a few representatives present. And then we conclude that this is a multistakeholder kind of model approach has taken place. But again, this is really – it is not that inclusive if we are to look at the MSM as has been presented by the previous speakers, mainly on the maturity in implementation tracking – it is still not clear who is doing what. The oversight of the review also, we still – there are issues of how do you track who is doing what, who is responsible. In many cases, if it is a policy deployment, it is very hard to track the review and what informs another review if it is needed. So I would say I think I am in agreement, but also a bit in context on the issue of maybe that we need to leave some issues – some issues may not require the approach. I think the multistakeholder model approach needs to be deployed at different levels depending on where you are in the maturity process. But I think at least consultative and implementation, there has to be some bit of representation from the different actors. Thank you. Thank you, Lillian. It is a pity that you cannot make it online to the IGF, but you cannot make it on-site. So I know you are in a difficult situation. So I hope your luggage will come to you in the end. Okay. Thank you.

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: Thank you very much for your comment. I mentioned the multistakeholder disguise. I am not sure if it is the right word to use, but I am a bit concerned that diversity of issues – we have diverse issues so that we have different types of multistakeholder models, but if so, we have to carefully design the multistakeholder process to deal with the issue in the right way. So Amrita just pointed out that any policy item has some kind of multistakeholder elements in it. So even digital economy has some multistakeholder elements in it. But how we can evaluate whether the issue is dealt with in a proper way? Do you have any thoughts on that?

AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Thank you. So the first thing is, for decision-makers or even governments who have not taken that approach completely, and it is a multistakeholderism in disguise, which I would call as tokenism. We’ve seen processes like GDC also saying multistakeholder. Personally, I do not believe it was multistakeholder. It was not at all transparent or accountable. So I think the first thing when people, as in governments have a right to decide upon their sovereign interests, it’s absolutely okay. But they need to understand something that, will it be helpful? Are they getting all the issues and all the concerns? Objections doesn’t mean someone is raising an objection for the heck of it. They are raising it because there is a genuine reason also. If you take it into consideration, act on that or don’t act on that, at least take it into consideration, there is a more buy-in from the different, I would say, actors in that ecosystem. So I think if they understand that having a more open approach to get the actual issues, even at a consultative phase, and even after a policy is formed, for example. Many times governments fail is because they took in information only from few select people and during the implementation time, they falter because the buy-in is not there from everyone. And that is where the issue happens. If you had taken a more consultative approach, it would have been much better. And so if they understand the value of it, that is the time they will use it more. Now there was a statement which Lillian made and I do agree with it. Developing countries don’t look at internet governance with that much of priority because connectivity is an issue, health is an issue, getting people jobs is an issue, feeding people is an issue. So will they not look at those issues first and then look at internet governance? For them that is priority. And they will go and talk in those forums where that is priority. So we also have to understand the maturity and these countries have limited resources. So they cannot put in so much of resource. So you have to know how to balance it out. And internet actually provides that leveler thing. So if they can use those things to get more views rather than be restrictive, and I have seen it in my country also at times. People feel worried of what kind of comments they will get. Once people start commenting, people also mature in the way they give comments. So I think these guidelines which Sao Paulo gives, unfortunately all governments have not endorsed it probably because it has not been spread so much. If they go out more naturally, people will not be defensive because each country actually wants to leapfrog, grow and serve their people better. So I think if we can explain it, no it’s not a fancy term, it will help you in the long run to get the results you want. And these are the guidelines which you can work on. You don’t have to create them. And cherry pick whichever you want. I think that would help.

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: Thank you, Marita. I have one question for Avri. And then we would like to open the floor to the audience. Thank you, Avri. As I mentioned, I am interested in the topic or issue-oriented differences in applying multi-stakeholder models. In your explanation, how topic-by-topic differences are considered. Do you have any thoughts on this?

AVRI DORIA: Yeah, thanks for the question. I think that that is actually a parallel set of issues. I think that it’s one that comes out, for example, when you’re selecting your participants, selecting your stakeholders, that that’s one of the places where the subject matter becomes a big concern, because what kind of specialists do you need? What are the groups? Who is it that’s participating in this? So from one aspect, I say, anytime you want to make a decision in a democratic manner, and you want to make it in a participatory democratic manner, where all the people that have some part of their life involved in this decision get a say, get to participate, then when you’re putting it together, you basically have to look at, well, if we’re going to be behaving in a multi-stakeholder manner on this topic, who do we need? You know, if we’re discussing how to control fire threats within a city, you know, it’s still very much a multi-stakeholder issue, because it concerns the citizens, it concerns the fire department, it concerns emergency services, the government, the volunteers, you know, the people that come through and rescue the burn victims. So you have a great number of people that are all sort of contributing to an event. You want the planning for these things, the understanding, the preparation for these disasters to be done in a way that makes sense to all those that are involved in the doing of it, that have responsibilities for it, that provide the funding for it, that provide the technology for it, that provide the workers that make it happen. So understanding who is involved in dealing with this particular issue allows you to build that participant group, that stakeholder group. Again, depending on the topic, when you’re looking at advice recommendations, do you have scientists that give advice at a purely scientific level, but really don’t care about the rest of it? So how do you design their advice section in? It’s nice that I put these here as simple words, but each one of these has a level that you have to deepen. What does it mean to contribute to a subject in different fields? Is it writing a paragraph? Is it building something? Is it coming up with some sort of template? So each of these things gets looked at, and if you looked at the other parts that I included at the bottom, the other aspects, the funding methods, geographical indicators that makes a difference, where you’re doing this is obviously going to change. If you’re doing it in Africa or you’re doing it in Asia or you’re doing it in Europe, it’s going to have different aspects because people look at the issues differently, so you’ll structure it differently. The cultural aspects of when people talk, how people talk, how they interact, is this being done more locally or is this a regional issue or is this an international issue, is going to sort of direct the kind of structure, the kind of analysis you have to look at in doing it. You know, I didn’t get into it all, the intersectional measures and the diversity elements and all of that, which are different. We have a different set of diversity elements depending on where we’re doing it and what kind of population, you know, the scope of interest. So there are many different aspects. I was really, you know, just trying to keep it sort of at a simple level, but to understand what we’re doing, we got to keep breaking it down into what are the important aspects of the model. And then within each of those aspects for any subject, there’s going to be another set of considerations. So that’s why I come down to it and say, I cannot envision a subject where there isn’t a set of stakeholders, participants, concerned citizens, et cetera. Any number of words, I’m not really hung up on the words, but there’s basically a group of stakeholders that have a concern and whose concerns need to be listened to, need to be understood, needed to be included in the decision making, et cetera. So as far as I’m concerned, it’s a model that can be used in any number of situations, but you got to do a lot of thinking about it to make it work. Hope that answers it.

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: Thank you. Thank you very much. Now, we would like to open the floor to the audience. If you have any comment or question, please come to the microphone or, yes, just take the mic. Otherwise, Zoom participants will not be able to hear your voice.

JIM PRENDERGAST: Is that? Okay. That’s on. Hi. Jim Prendergast with the Galway Strategy Group. Thanks for the session. Picking up a little bit on what Avri said, I think, and Amrita said, we just need to be cautious about mislabeling processes as multi-stakeholder when they’re not. You pointed out the GDC. All those who are familiar with the model knew right away, this doesn’t feel right. It’s not sitting right. So I think we use that as a teaching opportunity, as an opportunity to educate people about the model, because not everybody’s familiar with it, and particularly in the multilateral space, it’s very new to them. We should encourage them to continue to try and adopt it, but using things like the Sao Paulo principles as a guide, not necessarily as, you know, you have to use all of the principles, but use that as inspiration to better improve the processes, I think is something that we as the community can do to make them better going forward.

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: Thank you for your comment. Just for your information, I referred to the GDC because I wanted to show the diversity of issues being discussed in the frame of Internet governance. So I don’t think GDC is completely multi-stakeholder model, or I’m a bit skeptical about it. So just don’t get me wrong. Can I jump in with a response also?

JIM PRENDERGAST: And I agree. I think one of the distinctions that I’ve made in looking at the GDC processes is meaningful multi-stakeholderism. You know, asking for input and not reflecting back to the community how the input was used, what portions were rejected, which were accepted, how did you change the direction of the policy? That’s meaningful. You know, giving that feedback to stakeholders, that’s meaningful. Asking for a bunch of comments and then either doing nothing with them or not telling us how you’ve done something with them, that’s not meaningful and that, you know, people are only going to get tired of that after a while and not want to participate. But my point is, it happened, we can learn from it, let’s teach people how to do better going forward so that it is meaningful and it is productive and everybody sees value in it.

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: Thank you. Adri?

AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Jim just said much of what I was going to add in there. But yes, and in fact, that’s why I had written on that bottom ring, not only consulting, but paying attention to it. And I like your notion of the multi-stakeholder disguise because, a term I had not thought of before, because it does cover that where you can act like you’re doing something that is multi-stakeholder without the follow-through, without it being a meaningful action. So I think that is something to be very careful of. I personally think that if there is a good consultative, and it is paid attention to, and there’s feedback, and is that, even if you don’t go beyond it to what I’m calling the other levels of maturity, then you could still say, yeah, you’ve dipped your toes into the multi-stakeholder, you have had some multi-stakeholder modalities, but the actions that you take have to be genuine. Thanks.

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: Thank you, Avery. And Amrita, please.

AMRITA CHOUDHURY: Thank you. What I would like to add is, while GDC definitely was not a process which was completely multi-stakeholder, one thing we could look at is at least it tried to get people to respond. But again, one, it was not transparent, it was not open, how consultations were used, and it was not inclusive. A simple example, when you want comments from Global South at a time which is not friendly to them, and I speak from Asia-Pacific, most of the UN consultations were at very odd hours for people in Asia, you had to keep your video on, think of the countries where you do not have that much of internet bandwidth and keeping it on or you will be disconnected it’s not inclusive you will not get people you would not have found so many people from Asia in those calls because that ours were very bad also when people the other stakeholders were making comments the rooms were empty so it didn’t give a very good feeling to the others who were participating online that they were being heard they may have been heard we don’t know because we don’t know how the you know the feedback from everyone was used so I think it is a lesson as Jim said if we can learn it well we will do our business plus 20 negotiations much better

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: thank you very much and is there anyone who can okay there’s a gentleman at the table

AUDIENCE: who cattle can hear me from Japan and I thank you for a very interesting you know debates and and the presentations here so in listening to all of you I was wondering if we can have some global analysis jointly in some way with the people in this room for instance if some of the multi-stakeholder model you know work or not as everybody is you know talking about there are many different models and occasions even outside of a digital world and of course in a digital you know we studied the concept probably around the creation by can in 90s and then through wishes in a process we talked about you know much of this in a context of government but versus non-government and international government organizations dealing with internet issues or not and you know luckily enough I can survive it as it is and that’s a government is only a CAC advisory in a committee are not making a direct decision you know making that’s very important in a fact but IGF model is you know completely different it’s not a decision-making in a body it is just a discussion in a process but at the same time you know we have to look at the good aspect good the result of IGF in for instance people are gathering here listening to others what going on on the rule-making in individual countries and after we go back home and talk internally within the country we create some of the similar laws or even similar debates there that created a lot of opportunity for you know countries to have their own more harmonized you know system on the global basis and you know those are very small you know examples but if you look at the other areas then you know digital there must be some you know discuss discussions going on you know such as SDGs we had in New York in you know September that was more on SDG you know kind of you know debate and the digital was a part of that whether we could you know use multi-stakeholder model you know to other areas I think this is a time we really you know think and you know do a good analysis on a global basis and I think for that purpose everybody you know has to present some of the practices examples what’s going on and probably we should talk to our you know friends working on some other areas and you know if their model or their you know organizational processes are working well or not I think you know using everybody’s maturity model if we you know use more on the maturity and if we you know digest the benefit of those multi-stakeholder model I think you know we can be better off by having you know such example and find out some best practices here and probably at the next meeting we can you know get together and exchange some examples

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: thank you very much so we have some kind of international comparison of various models and various practices we may need to take consider the possibility of doing that kind of research forward thank you very much we have a parallel discussion going on in the chat so there’s a comment from Mark Nottingham it would be interesting to hear reactions to meet the Mueller’s characterization of multi-stakeholder as an empty label that does not describe a governance model and so Avery can you yeah

AVRI DORIA: yes, I’d love to answer it and I’d also like to I miss the gentleman whose name who had been speaking before his name but I’d like to make some comments on that too partly the answer that I put there is I very much agree that at the moment I said you know in effect I think I even said in my presentation we very much hand wave when we say multi-stakeholder because we haven’t done the the deeper diving into what we mean when we say it what are the aspects how do we put them together and such we’ve done a little bit of that kind of analysis but but by and large you know and whenever you see someone new coming into saying gee we’d like to do some multi-stakeholder whose model should we buy you know can can we do the the ICANN model can we do the IETF model and that never works for people because nobody fits anybody else’s shoes that well so so I believe that that what I’m putting forward here and other people are putting forward here is sort of the meat on what is in the model how do we define it how do we identify and to go on to the second gentleman’s and if I apologize for forgetting the name question is I think that’s the next step as we start to and it’s some of the stuff that I’m doing in the background too you know but but it’s just me doing it it’s it’s not a you know organized thing is sort of as these analyses of of what is in the various aspects and how one defines them then to take those and and use them to do analyses on some of our existing organizations some of our existing practices so that is indeed the intent thanks

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: thank you Avri in my understanding Milton’s point is that internet governance is about non-state actors deciding principles and implementing them so to me he he well actually Milton is going to have a dialogue on multi-stakeholder measurement right after this session as part of the giganet symposium so if you are interested please go to the session after after hours but so to me it seems like that Milton is looking at the topic by topic differences in terms of internet governance but maybe ask him later do you have any comments your face just popped up no okay oh okay nevermind sorry.

AMRITA CHOUDHURY: What he mentioned in terms of stakeholder wise accountability is also important because if you’re giving inputs whether you’re accountable for it later is also important and I think it comes with maturity of a model so I think certain things are important because and that whether you’re accountable for it would also come during the implementation part or even the follow-up part so I think looking at it in a broader scope the phase etc is important to actually do it but I think accountability of whoever is the stakeholder is also important

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: thank you very much do you have any other comment or question from the from the audience if not let me give you the final question for the for the speakers so Future, so what should we expect about multi-stakeholder model in the future? So what kind of principles should be shared across policy areas or geographic areas? So what do you see will become of the multi-stakeholder model in near future? Do we keep going on the same thing or do we need somewhat different action? What’s your thought? Amrita, please.

AMRITA CHOUDHURY: So I think whatever terminology you use, all participants who have vested interest or may have, should be there when discussions happen on policies, on issues where their lives are at stake or something is at stake. You call it multi-stakeholder, you call it whichever terminology, it is important. Because if anyone wants a particular policy process to work, you have to have the buy-in of the people. For example, now GDC has been ratified, it has to be implemented. If it has the buy-in of everyone, nation states, companies, technical community, civil society, etc., being a Herculean task, only then will it be able to achieve what it wants to achieve. So whatever terminology you use, you have to have relevant people interested or accountable in the room.

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: Thank you. Lidian, can you give us your thoughts on the future of multi-stakeholderism? Thanks.

LILLIAN NALWOGA: So for me, just to add to what Amirita has mentioned, it is not just about participation and having people present by taking numbers, it should be more transparency, inclusion, taking stakeholders accountable. So it doesn’t matter if, for instance, if it is at the global level and you are considering the global majority voices and having a few countries represented, and then this is called that we had representation from this particular kind of people from the global majority. So there has to be what kind of contribution are they bringing in place. So right now, the future of the global multi-stakeholder model is really in suspense because it is not just so clear what we really want. Some people really want to continue with the multilateral, having a few people on the table at more of a high level, but I think there has to be inclusive participation, transparency and accountability in what is being discussed, and also the ease of being able to track the outcomes of whatever process or whatever decision that comes out of the consultations.

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Avery, one last word, please.

AVRI DORIA: Thank you. First of all, pointing out that it is still, even if it did start in the last century, it still is a very young model. We’re still figuring out. I personally think it is an essential, critical model necessary in any sort of democratic movement we’re going to do. Representative democracy is wonderful, but it doesn’t get the people participating. It doesn’t get them heard. It doesn’t get them understood. So I think that this is a model that we need to keep developing. We need to go doing this deeper analysis. We need to go out and check the organizations that are and continuing to enrich and to make the model richer so that it can be done. And now, pretty much all the way through this, I’ve sort of been almost sounding sometimes like a cheerleader, like I think it’s all easy and it all works, and accountability, for example, is a big, difficult topic. The topic that worries me the most that I don’t even feel that I have a good grasp on and how to deal with it is, even if you’ve got a measure for accountability and you’ve got a measure for who gets to participate and all that, it’s the notion of everybody dealing with the process in good faith. And often, when I’ve seen situations where it looks like, gee, things are really laid out well for this part of a multi-stakeholder process to actually work and deliver something that does respond to the needs of the stakeholders, there are those with less than good faith that throw wrenches in, you know, we use words like disinformation these days. It used to be something else or that. And how the model protects itself against things like that, things like what you suggested, the sort of disguised or the imitation of the model without it being genuine. So that’s one of the places where I’m still very much, but I think going forward, what we’ve got to do is develop the analysis better and we’ve got to start applying that analysis against existing and future efforts. Thanks.

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: Thank you, Avri. I quite agree with the last point that Avery made. We have to look into what’s below the multi-stakeholder tokenism or disguise or whatever you call it. There is quite a lot of research that will be necessary. So thank you very much. Thank you all. We have still a bit of time, but we better stop it here. Oh, there’s a gentleman raising a hand in the audience.

AUDIENCE: Thank you. When we speak about multi-stakeholder model, we have to speak about the role of each stakeholder. Each stakeholder in his or her role. Suppose we are in a hospital and we have to decide whether to undertake a surgery for a patient or not. Shall the nurse, the administrative staff participate in this decision? No, they will be on the table, but not to decide if we have to make the surgery. For example, the financial people will say, no, he didn’t pay or he doesn’t have any guarantee to pay, so we cannot do it. The nurses can speak about other things related to this patient, but they cannot decide whether to have to undertake this surgery or not. So when we speak about stakeholders, we have to always say each in his or her role.

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: Thank you. Thank you very much.

AVRI DORIA: Can I comment? Yes, please. I agree, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a voice around the table. They may not have the final decision, but certainly the ethicist who’s sitting at that table and looking at whether it is ethical to perform that particular operation on that patient at that point in time. Indeed, the funding may be part of it. If the surgery is not life-saving, but it’s going to put the person in debt for the next 30 years, is that a consideration that needs to be heard? I would actually argue that those people do need a voice. They may not be the final decision. The surgeon and the availability of the surgical team is certainly perhaps a bigger, but even a discussion at that, that looks cut and dry at the beginning, once you start analyzing what goes into making surgical decisions, you’ll find that there’s a lot of stakeholders that are involved in that. And so, I totally agree with you. You need to look at what the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder are at every phase of a surgery. process. But that doesn’t limit the number of stakeholders necessarily. Thanks.

AUDIENCE: Avri, you are repeating what I said. I exactly said that. I said that they have to be on the table because they have their aspects on the decision. But the medical decision is the role of the doctors. The other parts have their field of their part of the decision. Thank you.

KEISUKE KAMIMURA: Thank you very much. There are many aspects where roles and responsibilities are concerned, so that shows we have a lot of work to be done in the future. Okay, let me conclude this session. Thank you very much. Thank you all for participating. Thank you, Avri, Lilian. Have a good day. Thank you all. Have a wonderful IGF. Thank you. Bye. Keep yourself safe. Very much. I’ve seen you on TV before. We are in the same hotel. We were having breakfast together and you were sitting next to me. I said, I’m in your care every month. He didn’t show his face. He just spoke. I interviewed him on JPNIC a long time ago. His video is still on YouTube. He’s from Tunisia. Oh, really? I don’t know where he’s from, but I’ve seen him a lot. Thank you. It’s really noisy around here. It’s a little dangerous. Is there a music event in the middle? There’s a stage in the middle. That’s interesting. How did you decide to have us there? I think we arranged it. I don’t know what’s going on. There’s a stage in the middle. I think there’s an event going on there. I wonder if the main hall is coming. It’s like this at the exhibition. I agree. It’s more important than the exhibition. But it’s not understood. It’s just a place where we’re interested in. I don’t care what kind of session it is. That’s right. The session we’re doing is like that. IJF is releasing a press release in Japanese. PR Times. Where is it? PR Times is like a release site. I don’t know if it’s the government or the industry. If someone doesn’t do it, it won’t come out. I thought it was because they wanted to promote it. I’m sure the people in Saudi Arabia understood what IJF was like in the past 20 years. But the AI international conference is like a newspaper. In Japan, people think of IJF as a conference. In Saudi Arabia, people think of it as an exhibition. I think it’s interesting that people can see that. That’s right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye. Thank you. Bye-bye. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Thank you. Bye-bye.

Agreement Points

Multi-stakeholder models are adaptable to different contexts

speakers

AVRI DORIA

AMRITA CHOUDHURY

LILLIAN NALWOGA

arguments

There is no one-size-fits-all model; multi-stakeholder approaches can be adapted to different contexts

Multi-stakeholder models are applicable to digital economy issues, contrary to initial doubts

The multi-stakeholder approach should be deployed at different levels depending on maturity

summary

The speakers agree that multi-stakeholder models can be adapted to various policy areas and contexts, including the digital economy and developing countries, with implementation varying based on maturity and specific needs.

Transparency and accountability are crucial for effective multi-stakeholder processes

speakers

AMRITA CHOUDHURY

LILLIAN NALWOGA

JIM PRENDERGAST

arguments

Transparency and accountability are crucial for meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement

Future multi-stakeholder processes should focus on transparency, inclusion, and accountability

Meaningful multi-stakeholderism requires feedback on how input was used

summary

The speakers emphasize the importance of transparency, accountability, and providing feedback on how stakeholder input is used in decision-making processes for effective multi-stakeholder governance.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers express concerns about the integrity of multi-stakeholder processes, highlighting the need to address issues of tokenism, bad faith actors, and disinformation that can undermine genuine multi-stakeholder engagement.

speakers

KEISUKE KAMIMURA

AVRI DORIA

arguments

“Multi-stakeholder disguise” or tokenism is a concern in some processes

Protection against bad faith actors in multi-stakeholder processes is a challenge to address

Unexpected Consensus

Applicability of multi-stakeholder models to various policy areas

speakers

KEISUKE KAMIMURA

AVRI DORIA

AMRITA CHOUDHURY

arguments

Multi-stakeholder models can be applied to various policy areas with different implementations

There is no one-size-fits-all model; multi-stakeholder approaches can be adapted to different contexts

Multi-stakeholder models are applicable to digital economy issues, contrary to initial doubts

explanation

Despite initial doubts about the applicability of multi-stakeholder models to certain areas like the digital economy, there was unexpected consensus that these models can be adapted to various policy areas, including those previously thought to be less suitable for multi-stakeholder approaches.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the adaptability of multi-stakeholder models to different contexts, the importance of transparency and accountability in these processes, and the need for continued development and analysis of multi-stakeholder approaches.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the core principles and challenges of multi-stakeholder governance. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the potential and limitations of multi-stakeholder models in internet governance, which could facilitate more effective implementation and refinement of these approaches in various policy areas.

Different Viewpoints

Applicability of multi-stakeholder models to different policy areas

speakers

KEISUKE KAMIMURA

AVRI DORIA

AMRITA CHOUDHURY

arguments

Multi-stakeholder models can be applied to various policy areas with different implementations

There is no one-size-fits-all model; multi-stakeholder approaches can be adapted to different contexts

Multi-stakeholder models are applicable to digital economy issues, contrary to initial doubts

summary

While all speakers agree that multi-stakeholder models can be applied to various policy areas, they differ in their views on the extent and effectiveness of these applications. Kamimura suggests that the effectiveness may vary depending on the policy area, Doria emphasizes the adaptability of the models, and Choudhury argues for their applicability even in areas initially thought to be unsuitable, such as the digital economy.

Unexpected Differences

Role of stakeholders in decision-making

speakers

AVRI DORIA

AUDIENCE

arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes can be evaluated based on orientation, participants, and roles/responsibilities

The roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder should be clearly defined

explanation

While Doria’s framework includes roles and responsibilities as a key aspect of multi-stakeholder processes, an audience member unexpectedly emphasized the need for clearly defined roles, particularly in decision-making. This highlights a potential tension between inclusive participation and the need for specialized expertise in certain decisions, which was not explicitly addressed by the main speakers.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the applicability of multi-stakeholder models to different policy areas, the criteria for evaluating these models, and the specific focus areas for improving multi-stakeholder processes.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there is general agreement on the importance and potential of multi-stakeholder models, speakers differ in their emphasis on various aspects of implementation and evaluation. These differences reflect the complexity of applying multi-stakeholder approaches across diverse contexts and policy areas. The implications of these disagreements suggest a need for further research and discussion to develop more nuanced and context-specific guidelines for implementing and evaluating multi-stakeholder models in internet governance.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of evaluating and improving multi-stakeholder processes, but they focus on different aspects. Doria proposes a framework based on orientation, participants, and roles/responsibilities, while Choudhury and Nalwoga emphasize transparency, accountability, and inclusion. They agree on the goal of enhancing multi-stakeholder processes but differ on the specific criteria to prioritize.

speakers

AVRI DORIA

AMRITA CHOUDHURY

LILLIAN NALWOGA

arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes can be evaluated based on orientation, participants, and roles/responsibilities

Transparency and accountability are crucial for meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement

Future multi-stakeholder processes should focus on transparency, inclusion, and accountability

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers express concerns about the integrity of multi-stakeholder processes, highlighting the need to address issues of tokenism, bad faith actors, and disinformation that can undermine genuine multi-stakeholder engagement.

speakers

KEISUKE KAMIMURA

AVRI DORIA

arguments

“Multi-stakeholder disguise” or tokenism is a concern in some processes

Protection against bad faith actors in multi-stakeholder processes is a challenge to address

Key Takeaways

Multi-stakeholder models can be applied to various policy areas but implementations may differ based on context

There is no one-size-fits-all multi-stakeholder model; approaches should be adapted to different situations

Multi-stakeholder processes can be evaluated based on factors like orientation, participants, roles/responsibilities, and maturity levels

Meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement requires transparency, accountability, and feedback on how input is used

The future of multi-stakeholder models in internet governance requires continued development, deeper analysis, and protection against bad faith actors

Resolutions and Action Items

Conduct more research and analysis on different multi-stakeholder models and practices

Develop better frameworks for evaluating the effectiveness and maturity of multi-stakeholder processes

Work on improving transparency and accountability in multi-stakeholder engagements

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively apply multi-stakeholder models to all policy areas, especially those like digital economy where applicability was initially questioned

How to address the issue of ‘multi-stakeholder disguise’ or tokenism in some processes

How to determine the appropriate roles and decision-making power for different stakeholders in various contexts

How to protect multi-stakeholder processes against bad faith actors and disinformation

Suggested Compromises

Adapt multi-stakeholder approaches based on the maturity level and context of each situation, rather than applying a single model universally

Balance inclusive participation with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for different stakeholders

Incorporate both consultative elements and decision-making power for stakeholders, depending on the specific policy area and phase of the process

I tend to believe that a form of the multi-stakeholder model can be used just about anywhere a group of people need to make decisions together. I tend to think that we’re never in a situation of all or nothing in terms of the model.

speaker

Avri Doria

reason

This challenges the notion that multi-stakeholder models are only applicable in certain contexts, suggesting a more universal applicability.

impact

This set the tone for a broader discussion about the flexibility and adaptability of multi-stakeholder models across various domains.

I think depending on the maturity level or the different pockets that Avri has mentioned, I think it should be able to work but the context kind of differs.

speaker

Lillian Nalwoga

reason

This introduces the idea that the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder models may depend on the maturity of the context in which they are applied.

impact

This led to a more nuanced discussion about how multi-stakeholder models might need to be adapted or evolved based on the specific context and maturity level of the stakeholders involved.

I think we are seeing lots of this multi-stakeholder disguise and I think if we go back to what Avri may have listed then we may need to rethink on who constitutes to be on the table for us to say that you know multi-stakeholderism has been applied.

speaker

Lillian Nalwoga

reason

This highlights the potential for misuse or misrepresentation of multi-stakeholder processes, introducing a critical perspective on implementation.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion towards the importance of genuine implementation and the need for clear criteria to evaluate multi-stakeholder processes.

Meaningful multi-stakeholderism. You know, asking for input and not reflecting back to the community how the input was used, what portions were rejected, which were accepted, how did you change the direction of the policy? That’s meaningful.

speaker

Jim Prendergast

reason

This comment provides a concrete definition of what makes multi-stakeholder processes meaningful, emphasizing transparency and feedback.

impact

This led to a deeper discussion about the quality and depth of stakeholder engagement, rather than just the presence of multiple stakeholders.

Representative democracy is wonderful, but it doesn’t get the people participating. It doesn’t get them heard. It doesn’t get them understood. So I think that this is a model that we need to keep developing.

speaker

Avri Doria

reason

This comment frames multi-stakeholder models as complementary to traditional democratic processes, highlighting their unique value.

impact

This broadened the conversation to consider the role of multi-stakeholder models in enhancing democratic participation and representation.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from a general consideration of multi-stakeholder models to a more nuanced exploration of their implementation, effectiveness, and evolution. The conversation progressed from discussing the broad applicability of these models to examining the challenges in their genuine implementation, the importance of context and maturity, and their potential role in enhancing democratic processes. This led to a richer, more critical analysis of multi-stakeholder approaches, highlighting both their potential and the need for careful consideration in their application and evaluation.

How can we evaluate whether a multi-stakeholder process is dealing with an issue in the right way?

speaker

Keisuke Kamimura

explanation

This question addresses the need for criteria to assess the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder models across different policy areas.

How can we conduct a global analysis of various multi-stakeholder models and practices?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This suggests the need for a comprehensive study comparing different multi-stakeholder approaches across various sectors and regions.

How can the multi-stakeholder model protect itself against bad faith actors and disinformation?

speaker

Avri Doria

explanation

This highlights a critical challenge in implementing effective multi-stakeholder processes and maintaining their integrity.

How do we define and implement accountability for different stakeholders within multi-stakeholder models?

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

explanation

This addresses the need to ensure responsible participation from all actors involved in multi-stakeholder processes.

How can we better analyze and apply multi-stakeholder models to existing and future governance efforts?

speaker

Avri Doria

explanation

This suggests the need for ongoing research and practical application of multi-stakeholder principles in various contexts.