The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> We only hear each other when we speak into the microphone. If you don't hear people who are speaking. You need to use this. It is going to be channel 3. So please take your microphone and headset.
Not everybody has to go up to the podium. But if you prefer, you can.
......
>> In order to hear what is said into microphones, you will need headsets. Anybody speaks to the microphone or someone online, you will need to use the headsets they are distributing.
Channel 3 is for room 3.
Yes. We’ll have one for this side and one for the other side.
>> All right. Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the session. Everything is good with the technology? Everybody can hear? Everybody has a microphone?
Channel 3. Should be channel 3.
And you hear me now?
Perfect. Okay.
I feel like a rock star with this microphone on. So hello everyone. Welcome to this business government round table that is looks like a panel. But it is it will be a roundtable.
We're trying to take a little bit of stock of what has happened this year. On all the various fronts on the digital policy making and number of issues. And we will try and see how we move forward towards a more common digital cooperation. And how we can work better together between business and government sectors.
I don't want to take up too much time in doing an introduction. But really just want to share with you how we are envisioning this session to go.
We have set up three mini discussions within this two hours that we have together today.
First we're going talk about governance of artificial intelligence, what has happened throughout the year on this topic and where we are hoping to go forward. Then we'll take the same stock around conversations around data governance. So how with we today with initiatives on data governance? What have we done so far? And where we hope to go on digital cooperation.
And then we're looking at the processes we have all been engaged in as part of the IGF community. The Global Digital Compact. And the WSIS plus 20 process. And trying to look ahead after we have taken stock of these policy developments and try and see where we want to go in the context of these policy fora and processes, what is it that we see as necessary as all of us up here on the panel. But together with to you in the community.
So we will have two speakers per topic. To start the discussion. And then we're going to turn to all of you in the room for a dialogue on the topics.
So we won't way until the end to have the dialogue. We have two speakers and then you. And then again two speakers. And then you.
But to set the scene, we will have first a keynote. I want to start by first of thanking all of you panelists who have accepted to be here with us. Just a quick introduction on who we have here. In no particular order at the moment. But just the way it appears on my list here. We have Ms. Flavia Alves. Director and head of . Thomas Schneider. He is also the vice chair of Europe' committee on artificial intelligence. There will be my first panel on AI. Also Mr. Yoichi Iida. Assistant vice minister for international affairs, minister of international affairs communication at Japan. And Dr. Irina Soeffky. At the Germany Federal ministry for digital and transplant. They will be my second panel on data. And third panel on looking ahead for the WSIS conversations, we will have Ms. Larisa Galadza. And government of Canada. And Mr. Maarit Palovirta. And Mr. Amr Hashem.
To kick us off. Quick keynotes and few thoughts on where we are and hoping to do go. Maria Fernanda, please.
>> MARIA FERNANDA GARZA: Thank you. Just nod your head if you can listen to me please?
Thank you.
Let me start with few quick words about the international chamber of commerce. For those who might not know, ICC, constitutional representative of more than 45 million businesses in over 170 countries. With mission to enable peace and prosperity through trade.
We deeply believe in the notion that a world based in rules benefit business and society. And this mission is particularly relevant today. In a rapidly evolving digital world the stakes have never been higher for us to collaborate effectively. To shape policies that are inclusive, sustainable and forward thinking.
This year we have seen meaningful discussions on digital policy across multiple lateral fora. Whether it is G7, G20 OECP. The ongoing efforts of the U.N. including the adoption of the Global Digital Compact and preparations for the 20 year review of the outcomes of the world summit of the information society.
These discussions address a number of pressing issues, from digital divides and cybersecurity, to the governance of data AI and our digital world in general. Yet these discussions are happening against the backdrop of a crisis in multi laterallism. Deepening geopolitical tensions and competing national priorities have made it harder to achieve alignment. And result is increasing regulatory and policy fragmentation.
For business this fragmentation creates uncertainty. Disrupts cross boarder digital trade, increases compliance costs and stifles innovation. For governments, it makes it more challenging to establish interoperable frameworks that support economic growth and cross border collaboration.
To address these challenges, we must pursue greater alignment, observing the flexibility to meet diverse local needs. A single centralized global remuneratory (?) structure is neither feasible or desirable. Instead we should build on the strengths strength of expert organisations and forums, allowing them to contribute within their mandates, while fostering collaboration across sectors and regions.
Looking ahead to 2025, our priorities must include first governments establishing principles and frameworks that support the free flow of data while addressing legitimate concerns about privacy and (?) (multiple people talking on mics).
>> MARIA FERNANDA GARZA: while addressing (talking) regions.
And third, the internet governance. Reinforcing the principles of open, interoperable and inclusive internets.
So at the heart of this effort must be the multi stakeholders approach that offers a model that brings together governments, businesses,
to develop policies that are pragmatic, inclusive and effective.
The IGF is the embodiment of this approach. It is not a decision making body. But it is invaluable in its ability to bring together all stakeholders to share knowledge and expertise, ensuring interoperable policy approaches that immediate the diverse needs of everyone everywhere.
So looking ahead to the implementation of the Global Digital Compact and the WSIS plus 20 review. We must follow through on the promise made 20 years ago to make the multi stakeholder model the rule and not the exception.
It is how we address a policy and frameworks around the internet and the digital technologies more broadly. So to move forward, we need to ensure that the voices of all stakeholders are heard and are valued. Business has a critical role to play. Not just in the implementing the policies, but in shaping them through expertise and practical experience.
Today I encourage us to have an honest, focussed discussion in a true IGF fashion. About how we can align our priorities, reduce regulatory fragmentation, and prepare for WSIS plus 20 in a way that strengthens digital governance for the next decade.
So thank you all for your engagement and commitment to these issues.
>> HOST: Thank you. I hope that everybody could hear you. Just trying to cheque with the panelists that everybody is okay with the microphones. And everybody is okay with the headsets. Okay.
Thank you so much.
Maria Fernanda for leading us this in discussion. On this imperative of talking openly, let's jump into our first panel. I said we would be starting with artificial intelligence and try and take a little stock of the current state. And governance, trying to identify commonalities. On initiatives we are all aware of. But also trying to see if there are any barriers we still need to surmount in the implementation. To kick off, first to Thomas Schneider. And I'm going to ask you to wear two hats in this conversation.
First, talk a little about opportunities and challenges you see in operationalising AI governance and then maybe share a few words of the work you have done at the
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Yes, thank you. And hope you can hear me. Thank you Timea. Before I go into more detail. One thing that helped me understand or get a vision on the concept of AI governance is to note that AI is not the first disruptive technology that mankind has cease opportunities and minimize risks.
Number of parallels that can be drawn with the way we actually managed engines, combustion, but also other engines. Because engine driven machines in the 1920s started to replace physical human and animal labour through putting engines into machines that were either used to move something from A to B or used to automate production of goods or of food.
There are lots of parallels with the digital revolution of today where we use AI to replace not physical labour but cognitive labour. Mainly in two ways to either process or generate content or the analyse data and prepare decisions. In both cases risks and impact of the technology are very much context based. And if we try to figure how to govern AI, I think it may be worth how to look how we more or less managed to govern engines in different areas of their use.
If you look at engine, of course we're aware there is no single engine convention. No one engine law that regulates all aspects of use of engine. Thousands of technical norms, legal norms and also social/cultural norms that differ from culture to culture and how to manage risks and in the case of engines used in different contexts. And there is areas where we have quite advanced harmonisation internationally. If you take the airline industry of course to land an airplane is same on every airport in the world. But if you take a cars, even in Europe, people drive on different sides of the road and so on and so forth.
But there is some level of interoperability so the Brit is also able to drive in Switzerland, although we're driving on the other side of the road.
And I think the same is already happening in the field of AI. We also have standardisation institutions in the technical field. ISO, ISE, I2 of the. IEE. And institutions like in Europe working on technical standards. We have a lot of legal instrument, binding and unbinding one, starting from the UNESCO recommendations. Counsel of Europe already done work before this binding instrument. And others have contributed to number of legal instruments. And we will also have differences in how in particular society how you deal with risks or what you task to cope with the risk. These things will probably keep varying. And in this sense the convention to the counsel of Europe has negotiated and I happen to have been leading these negotiations in last two years is one. But not the only instrument that will hopefully help us to cope with AI. In the sense that the purpose of this convention is not to create new rights. Or to raise protection levels or make new restrictions. It is to make sure that the existing safeguards and protection levels of human rights, democracy and rule of law are also apply to AI like they apply to any other environment or technical development that we've seen.
And it is important also to note that the instrument is meant to secure these rights and freedoms. But not to but at the same time to be conducive to innovations or not to disadvantage those part of this structure compared to others that may not be. Because we think that there is a mutual interest from the industry, from consumers, from the states that we have a certain level of trust and clarity and rules that allow us to move on. Allow us to be innovative. But more or less, yeah, to assess risks and impacts and deal with them in reasonable and appropriate way.
In the world council of Europe may apply that this is something European. It is first of all not the same like the European Union. European Union has 27 member states. Council of Europe has 46. And council of Europe has system of observers that can also be ad hoc observe to a process that allows actually to include countries from all continents to be part of a process and become significant Tories of an instrument. Which is the case also with convention.
We have participants from Latin America, Asia and also touch with Africa to join the work now. So the idea is to have a global instrument. Global in the sense that you would require a minimum level of human rights democracy and rule of law. Otherwise the whole system will not be credible. But every country that respects a certain level of democracy, rule of law and human rights is invited to join the process.
The convention is also an instrument, unlike a law that is meant to be more future proof. Therefore in terms of time and development, therefore needs to be a little more general, little more abstract. But in a way that you can at any given time translate it into a concrete for whatever the latest technology may be.
So it establishes some general principles about safeguarding existing protection levels of democracy and rule of law. And goes into more detail about human rights. But remains always at the level that can be adapted to the concrete, legal and institutional setting of a particular country. And does help to not fully harmonise the world because that may not be possible. But at least build on the shared fundamental values and legal norms that many countries share and help to align different legal construct there is a way that they cannot just be interoperable for the states. But also for the industry and for the consumers. So there is a common basis. And that is not just the legal text. It is also and I'll end with this. It is also a concrete instrument which is a concrete methodology for human rights democracy and rule of law, risk and impact assessment, which is fundamental also to build a bridge not just between technical standards and legal standards. But also to help operationalise something abstract like a convention into daily life that makes sense for consumers but also for programmers and regulators
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you, Thomas. Working hand in hand with stakeholders. Making sure we're working towards policy frameworks that can be global in nature but can for example enough to be implemented in local context and importance of providing actual tools to making those happen.
And I'm just from all of this trying to connect to the rest of the conversation. I want to highlight one thing you said. Trust and clarity. So that the those who are implementing and working implementation sides of these technologies are able to take the rules, the principles that we develop and actually make it part of their work. So I think it is a good segue to Flavia who is going to speak next. I want to ask her about the commitments industry is taking in field of AI? And how do you see that linking up with some of these global conversations in policy and treaties and guidelines and others that are happening around the world? And what is the meta focus on this and how do you see that?
>> FLAVIA ALVES: Thanks for having me here today. I'm Flavia Alves, director and head of international organisations for Meta.
So first let me tell you, Meta is committed to developing responsible AI and we work to help ensure that AI at Meta benefits people and society. In addition to our internal processes to develop AI responsibly, we are also active on international level in contributing to development any implementation of AI governance frameworks.
International cooperation is key to ensuring people around the world can fully harness the benefits of AI. Global AI governance frameworks promotes trust and helps to prevent fragmentation and inconsistency across jurisdictions.
Given the quickly evolving capability of GenAI, we need frameworks that are agile and adaptable. As a company, we participate in industry bodies and international commitments and organisations. Industry bodies, to name a few. The AI alliance. Partnership in AI. Front model forum. And others.
There is for voluntary and international commitments, we are signatory to the White House voluntary . (?). Munich accord on AI. And safety commitments. Also active on the G7 process implementation. We need to avoid fragmentation. Governments (?) consistent international positions that support the development of AI. The benefits society in responsible way. This was a key underpinning of the U.N. resolution on AI approved earlier this year. Similarly the G7 leaders just commit to step up on a interoperability on AI governance framework risk.
in a stage with the prime minister of Japan, as they discussed importance of the G7 Hiroshima process in bringing stakeholders together in order to harness AI. (?) to apply the code of conduct on the AI process. And looking forward to work with G7 Canada in the next steps of implementation of the Hiroshima AI process.
For the multi stakeholder forum we're active participation. We are members of the business at OECD and experts on AI. Involved in supporting the development of the 2019 AI principles. And also very pleased to see that principles in the AI act. Frameworks evolve and build upon each other instead of fragmented.
Special thanks to fellow panelist Mr. Iida. It is a multi stakeholder frameworks I also said we are part of the AI governance. (?) we are part of all of this different efforts. Also global effort from the U.N. Participate at the U.N. globally digital compact and looking forward on the implementation of that. Also very pleased to see the outcomes of the work of the U.N. high level advisory body on AI. (?) was excellent. Particular on the government framework. And how to participate in independent international scientific panel on AI and global forum on AI.
Can you hear me? Okay.
So now is one part that we are looking into see in all of this framework. It is the open approach to AI development. Through all of these initiatives, one aspect of governance that is crucial and very important for us is the promotion of open source AI models. Each source AI has real potential to serve as equalizer providing access to the world's most advantages model as a global scale. We favour this approach because in many contexts we believe it is the right thing do.
It drives innovation. It creates better, safer products that everyone can benefit from. We also believe open source thereby key to unlocking the potential of AI across developing nations. Open source has several strategic benefits. It is good for Meta. We benefit from a developed ecosystem of tools, efficiency, improvement, optimizations and other integrations. It is also good for developers. The open source AI allows develop tore train their own models, control their own destiny without being locked into a single closed model.
Above all, open source will ensure more people around the world have access to benefits and opportunities of AI. The power isn't concentrated in small number of companies. And in technology can be deployed more equally and safely across society.
As of today we have 600 million downloads of models. Being used by... as well as international governance bodies. For example we created no language left behind AI model, which UNESCO is using to help support high level translation, including low resourced and marginalized language.
As we converge around frameworks it is critical they support open approach to development AI. And enable investments and generate AI to deliver on their possibly. Also advancing progress.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you Flavia for that. So with this two introductory statements. I would like to turn first to the panelists and see if there is any reaction statements. And then for those of you on the floor if you might have questions or reactions statements to what we've heard.
You were called out a couple of times. Both in name and work of Japan.
>> YOICHI IIDA: Thank you very much. My name is Yoichi Iida. (?). And I have been working as chair, committee Chair at OECD for digital policy making and also last year I worked as Chair of G7 working group and Hiroshima process working group.
Having listened to the wonderful previous two wonderful speakers. I want to pick up three points from the progresses and development over the last two or three years in AI governance.
The first thing is as frequently mentioned, G7 has been discussing AI governance very actively. We agreed in Hiroshima process code of conduct last year in the and this year and the Italian presidency. We're discussing the monitoring mechanism. And also the brand for the companies and organisations who implement the code of conduct.
And we have lot of support from OECD and we are almost agreeing on the monetary mechanism, the brand. We takes little bit of time. But I hope we will put the Hiroshima process code of conduct together with monitoring mechanism into action. And invite the private sector players to announce their commitment to those instruments early next year.
Of course, this is my personal hope, but I believe G7 can move quickly.
And previous this year G7 discussed AI for development. I this believe there is very important aspect of AI governance. Because we always talk about AI governance to leave no one behind. And with developing countries, people in the marginal communities should not be left behind, of course. And AI for development is a very important notion.
And one of the efforts to implement this notion into action is second element of my presentation. Which is Hiroshima process friends group. Hiroshima process friends group is still a kind of Japanese government initiative. But also with lot of support from other G7 member countries.
And this group now covers more than 50 countries. Including all EU members. And we cover a lot from Asia, Africa and Latin America. And we are still actively increasing the number of members. And we often hear lot of voices from those countries, that they are very much welcoming these opportunities. Because they have less opportunities to listen to the discussions on international AI governance. And they have less opportunities to be involved.
So we need to provide those such opportunities to countries and communities and the people in marginal communities. And we need to realise the multi stakeholder approach in AI governance discussion too.
So this is the second element. And the second development through the year.
And also the third one, is the global partnership on AI and OECD AI community. Those two communities are integrate into one. (Audio garbled).
...
(?) (no audio).
(Garbled audio).
I have great concern about that. Thank you.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you for that question and that reflection. I think it is going to be a good segue then to our next conversation on data. And then if we would have another one, it would have to be on collectivity. And in we had another it would have to be on electricity perform.
So it starts very very deep back. The presentation from interest very beginning. Of where those divides are and how we bridge them. But I think the spirit we hear is we do want to bridge them. And we need to find the right partnerships on where we start closing those gaps and how can we make sure that we go as far up now where we are at the end of the development spectrum with GenAI. But who knows tomorrow? And there comes quantum and other things.
But I think this commitment that we see here that I've heard also on the panel wanting to work together is the first step there. Would anybody from the panel like to react any further to that?
>> I think it is a good comment. I think that there is a willingness, I've seen in the my last few months on this job. A willingness to a different kind of partnership when it comes to AI and AI for good and AI for development and all those things.
But I'm not sure that simply pointing at the algorithms and saying they are not good enough or they are biased or the data being used is not representative. I think the partnership requires someone to say, hey, we've got datasets in our country. Can you help us put them together? You help us (?)? And we want to front. We would like to support an initiative that uses our local language. We would like to work with you.
So I think that when you hear those of us in countries that are funding and doing what we can to try to bridge the divide. "Nobody left behind "wouldn't be the language I use but that it is for the common good. That we're looking for partners who say" yes." And we've got language and we've got models and we've got skills. And we've got datasets.
We need compute. Or we need someone to do some translation for us ore whatever it is that is required. That is the kind of partnership that Canada is going to be looking for as we made into our G7 presidency.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you for that. Any other comment there is the floor? Is there anybody online who would like to talk?
If not then I'm just going to give the microphone back for one minute each to Thomas and Flavia to close out the segment. And then we'll move into our data discussion which, I hope will be as exciting as this one was.
>> Thank you. Parliamentarian from Egypt, to react. It is important we not just align or make these different instruments interoperable but they also help to provide for solutions for the ones that are not yet part in the
>> TIMEA SUTO: change you
>> stereo.
So I think in and I also invite to you come and join the council of Europe. This is the normative legal part of it. The trying to help all countries do risk and impact assessment. Of course the data component is an important one. If there is no data. But then your people T algorithm is no use. Several aspects like and discussions good to raise what are the elements? What do we need progress? And where do we need more progress? What is priority? Thanks very much.
>> TIMEA SUTO: people can hear you with that microphone?
>> FLAVIA ALVES: Thank you. So first I think one thing I want to make clear is that our project no language left behind is about translation. (?)
(audio fading in and out)
>> I have 30 seconds. With regards to that (?) open source model that can actually implement as we speak. Partner with the Gates foundation and funding projects in now.
(audio fading in and out)
come to us to see what type of datasets...
I will stop here because it seems it is not working.
>> TIMEA SUTO: If we can take a 2 minute break and try and see if we can find a microphone that works for the panel.
Can we try that one then? Okay. So these two we can, I think give back to you and try the third one. Maybe third time is charm.
>> Yes it works for now. So yes please that is what we want. We want to work together. Why open source approach with stakeholders, researchers and developers. Countries are governments. International government. That we can help develop AI. That is particularly open source. That is an equalizer. We want to make sure open source AI, or AI, gets to everyone.
And we don't get in the same bridge we had before with connectivity. Where people were left behind. Of course we need connectivity to get to AI. But at this time we want to advance the bridge, if possible.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you so much Flavia. And yeah, as I said before, it is a good segue to our next discussion which we're going talk little bit about what we have done. They can hear me with this one?
So what we have done as global committee this year to try to advance little the conversations on data governance. And what are the challenges that we faced? Where we still go? Where we need to work more to expand on this?
And is what can we do to make sure that our approach to data governance...
Yes I'm very sorry we
>> solution with these things that don't work.
>> Yes exactly. Maybe there is new development in technology we can use for this. But we ...
Next year at the IGF we'll be transported into virtual headset. But until then let's talk a about data. Where we are with the data governance issues. What has happened this year and where do we hope to go. I'll turn first to Iida san again to talk about his insight on data flows, with trust. And what you have done to find (?) for trust of government access. To data. To privacy protection.
And the considerations of the (?) of data across borders. And where the you still see barriers that we need to overcome?
>> YOICHI IIDA: Thank you very much. Thank you very much for this very complicated (?) questions. And happy to share what I know from my experience as development over the last year.
And actually, Japanese government proposed the concept of data free flow with trust, which encourage the stakeholders to make the data (?) as free as possible while ensuring the trust regarding data, data flow.
And aspect of privacy protection and intellect property protection and other human rights protections. And this concept was discussed over the years. And this year, early this year, OECD launched expert committee. If I remember correctly, in every area. And there were more than 200 experts together to discuss how we can promote data fellow across borders, while ensuring some legitimate protection of human rights and other freedoms or other rights.
And this community is now discussing (?) financial data flow across borders. While of course is a insuring security of data and privacy protection.
Second pillar is privacy protection. And would be lot of different types of technological solutions to protect privacy when we flow or data across borders. And discussing how we can enhance and deploy such technologies to promote data across borders.
And the third element is legal transparency around data... I'm sorry. Data flows. So I think different jurisdictions are taking different approaches on data flow and data protection. And just like the people discussed with AI, the data policies also (?) lot of interoperability. And discussing how question promote interoperability across different jurisdictions and how we can insure transparency. Governance framework, including regulations. Development regarding data free flow trust. And one important element here is the trust for what trusted government access to the data held by private entities. And this aids based on the digitalisation taken by the member countries OECD at the end of year 2022. And the discussing with how the government (?) when they access the data held by private sector entities.
Even when they want to use data for some legal actions. Different countries have different systems when (?) other entities want to access the private data. And we discussed what are the kind of common elements here. And what are the gaps here. So this group is also now discussing what will be the next element.
One element is, you know, this is just agreement among 38 members country of OECD. And now they are trying to approach the countries outside OECD to understand what the OECD members are commonly following. And what would be the potential gaps or potential commonalities with countries outside the group. And probably try to find the group global commonality and consistency about the government access to private sector data.
And from the similar perspective, OECD also took recommendation with data sharing and data access. And this recommendation is also knowing with discussed to advance the practical implementation of this recommendation interaction.
So quite a lot of approaches are taken now. And the main point is again the interoperability between different jurisdictions, while we protect the common universal kind of universal, I'm not sure we can say "universal." But commonly held between different countries and different (?) around the world.
So with kind of presumption that, you know, data should be...
... to produce the much benefit as possible and for the people, for the common good. So I think again, we always talk about, you know, no one left behind. And it is always very difficult to achieve. But the continuous, endless effort is very important. And we never forget about this concept "no one left behind." So that is what I can share at this moment. And look forward to other discussion. Thank you very much.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you Iida. Two things I pick up from your input, similar to what we've heard in the AI conversation is need for interoperability of, or policy regulations and need to avoid fragmented approaches.
In the spirit of wanting to make sure that first of all we create an environment where all stakeholders and businesses have the certainty and reliability of where we're going forward. But also to make sure that everybody is represented and is part of not just the services themselves but also of the governance conversations around it.
So I'm going turn to Maarit now from connect Europe. And that is actually going to preface a little bit of I think what you are going to bring in. Because I hope you will tell us a little about how the European approach is to this but also how industry in Europe see it is conversation around governance and development.
Floor is yours.
>> MAARIT PALOVIRTA: Super. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Timea. I hope hear me. For those who don't know Connect Europe, we are a trade association based in Brussels and members are the leading European telecommunication operators.
And just to give you an idea. So our members today serve about 270 million Europeans with different types of connectivity services. You might be asking yourself what is this lady here in the data session? She should be in the connectivity.
But of course there is a very close link between connectivity and content. So the data travels in the networks that our members are running. And also very importantly, the provision of connectivity services and network services of European operators rely on cross border cooperation. So whether vendors or partners or other types of service providers.
And to make things even more complex, cloud and cloud computing has certainly brought another aspect into the data governance in that data in between the networks of course then is stored and processed in the cloud. And here, you know, if you look at the ecosystem of the industry that we have specialized cloud service providers. But also (?)...
So there is a kind of interdependence between the different players. And of course very important we have a data governance model. And hopefully some level of interoperability to make sure that costs, especially costs for operators and different parties are kept in tact. Et cetera.
Now, I'll talk a little about the approach in Europe quite briefly. I think that Europe has been leading in the data protection in many ways. Because data privacy and protection is something that both our policymakers but also citizens hold very dear.
And we have I think we have quite a robust vision and also policy framework within Europe. And then now more recent, we also start to have a data framework that goes beyond Europe. So looking at the third party relations. But just to look at within Europe first. So we of course have our GDPR, the general data protection regulation for personal data.
And I believe that this is quite well known. Also globally. And we consider this as really being the baseline and the basic rules for data in Europe.
And while the GDPR is not perfect. We do can are a good example globally speaking.
Then we have some other rules. And maybe not so well known internationally, but something that we called the eprivacy directive. A historical piece of legislation. And which imposes some sector specific, very restrictive rules regarding data management. And especially (?) operators.
And we believe this type of sector specific rules have become kind of out of touch with the data economy today. And here we really come to the question that we need to at the same time while we protect data bravest, we need to start also promoting innovation. And this I don't think is such a good example coming from Europe, if you like. And then really, putting into today's context, we believe that when we look at rules on privacy, that all digital players should be subjected to the same (?) rules of privacy, as they often process the same kind of data. For example, localization data.
We can think of many players that today hold different types of data. So we believe that really a horizontal solution would be the most effective one. Hopefully this will also, if you like level a little bit (?) in terms of governance frameworks.
And then we have more recently we have some new rules on cross border data. And especially when it comes to cross border government access to data in the shape of the data act that was adopted earlier this year.
And there we have some rules. Which for example require cloud and other data processing services to prevent third country governmental access and (?)... in the EU. If such a access is legal under EU or member states law.
And this of course, well it complements the GDPR in many ways. And we have welcomed it as... as it provides some level of legal certainty to our members.
On... various free data flow agreements. I think also with the U.S. Which is a major one. And industry side we believe the agreements very welcome and bring more data legal clarity. And also safeguards for businesses and citizens. I think that, you know, as a final point, from Europe, it is also very important to note that it is not only about policy frameworks or regulation. It is also about technical solutions and interoperability.
And for example, in a slightly kind of marginal context. But there is also ongoing work in the EU to work on some common cybersecurity certification schemes. Which can be seen as you know helping to limit foreign government access to EU data and helps us securing EU data.
Going to your suggestion about risk of fragmentation Timea. I think our common goal is preserve the open and interoperable internet. Especially also at the technical standards and protocols level. And maybe just I would like to mention here, I mean there are many risks as we have already heard. But we mention two examples that's certainly have come up in some ways in the EU context lately.
One is evolving global community eco infrastructure and . I mentioned the I cloud. For example, we talked about submarine cables and satellite becoming part of connectivity ecosystem.
And I think that's and our members are also involved in these activities. But we need to then also consider about not only the technical interoperability but also the legal certainty of carrying our data through the new and evolved connectivity chain. And also it is a question of resilience. Now we're not here asking for regulation on this. We're just hoping that when we look at this data governance stream that we have a holistic look on these things.
The second thing if, I may, is data sovereignty. And this is a text kind of example that has come up quite a lot. And we see this also in the E.U. context. Some parts of the world, they have legitimacy to protect citizens with different data governance regimes if you like. But then there is, can be a kind of protectionist or commercial, also, incentive to create these data areas. That when they go too much, too far, it becomes then a counterproductive for businesses.
And this includes businesses from the region. So of course if everybody starts looking at things too much from the home perspective, then businesses will increase costs and also legal complexity. So here we would be, you know, calling for balancing act. While of course in European context, privacy and data protection is very important thing.
Very briefly, to conclude the way forward. We believe that innovation of course and global digital commerce are important and they need also to be protected. And, but, you know, it needs to be very clearly in balance with the rights and values and European context especially with data protection and privacy.
And we believe from the operator side that this is best achieved through horizontal, so not sector specific, policy framework that are also flexible. Future proof ideally. Although it is a challenge for all policymakers. And also technology. Technologically neutral.
So I would maybe stop my initial remarks there. Thank you.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you so much Maarit. So the conversation we've had on AI and highlighting the need for interoperability, I think we can add to that a little bit more. From your remarks and I Iida San's remarks. So not just the sector of economy but of regulation. Sometimes regulation in one area may impact another and not realising those impacts.
And then of course need to harmonise across regions.... leave for another speaking engagement. Emphasizing her opening remarks is try and reinstate trust in global cooperation and multi lateral cooperation as well. Otherwise we will get into too much of an inward looking situation where it is not going to be good. What we want to achieve. That talking just earlier about, including everyone in the data conversation.
So with that, are there any comments or questions from the floor regarding the data segment of our panel? Anybody would like to say?
Can we please have a microphone to the lady?
Thank you.
>> I will try to be quick. It is just about the data.
...
To get legislation...
(audio fading in and out)
Sell several countries Europe, other places. Thank you, of course.
>> I heard your question. I will share the concerns....
if I take an example, for instance, of...
>> actually when we started discussion, government access to data. We were very much surprised to see, you know, different people are gathering. People from Riyadh, digital economy policy people. But actually we had a group of intelligence people, police and law enforcement people. Or some lawyers and people from the court and others.
So we always have a widespread aspects of debt and governance. And this is something we have to tackle altogether. And answer is not always very easy. But when we talk about the bias of data for AI, we have also struggling the gap and probably, you know, the Japanese also struggling with the development of AI (?) demand. Most of the AI models and AI technologies are based on English. And Japanese is very small language.
So now we are trying to develop multi language models using different kind of marginal. Some small scale languages together. And we're working with different partners from Asia and other regions to develop our own language models. To reflect differences, not only in languages but also in cultures. Which is very important when we develop a language model.
So we share a lot of difficulties and the challenges together. And we hope, you know, we need to tack we hope we tackle these challenges. Altogether. Not only by the government, but across different communities.
Thank you very much.
>> If I may maybe address a little bit the question. The evidence, or say more generally the obligation, regulatory obligations that operators have with law enforcement. It is a very tricky topic. It is, you know, from, if we're looking at a kind of purely from a data economy perspective. Without any societal responsibility. Of course it is a cost to operators. It complicates things. Recently we discussed the law the legal interpret obligations from within Europe. And an operator from one of the bigger countries said it cost them $50 million a year just to comply with the legal intercept obligation. So it is not nothing. It is a big responsibility and obligation.
But at the same time for the society to work well, and to put the criminals into jail and to all this, of course this then is maybe necessary. But from the data governance and how do you fit it into the framework? Of course that is not an easy task. And, you know, from our side, we wouldn't want to go off course and judging the rightfulness or wrongfulness of it at the moment. It is the way it is.
So thank you.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you more that. I see that we have are no comments online. And I don't see any hands up in the room. So I think we can move onto our last segment.
From the data conversation. I think we've thrown up quite a few highballs in the first two rounds. And these are the topics that we see not just individual governments or stakeholders struggling with. But when we look at the global level. When we look at the United Nations or various regional fora. We see quite a lot of struggle on how we actually make sense of the governance of all of this. How do we take all of these issues and try and connect those who are working on the various policy frameworks on this.
Try to make them more aware of one another. And then what are some of the other structures that might or might not be necessary to help with not only the practical implementation but the global governance discussions around all of this.
So we had quite a significant process this year where Germany was holding, well, one of the panel holders for the future. A huge fete I think in multi lateral agreements on many shoes. But we'll focus on digital today. Complement with the Global Digital Compact.
And then we have a number of multi lateral fora. So how do we deal with all of this in that context. And also talked about taking the work of G7 and making it broader in other fora. So how do we move towards that idea. And then of course where does the private sector come in in all of this. So that is what we're trying to figure out in the remaining 40 minutes or so that we have on this panel. Also keeping in mind that we are at the IGF, which is the product of the (?) society coming very significant milestone next year. So in this context, I'm just going to ask first Irina to take a bit of stock what has happened this year with the path to the future and Global Digital Compact and how we move into moving all of these discussions ahead both in the (?) context but also (?). Irina.
>> IRINA SOEFFKY: Thank you very much. And internet governance is very important us to. Maybe not too much to say a bit in the sense of everything we've within discussing so far. Really digging to the core now. And yeah, it's important decisions have been taken. Others are still about to be taken. And I think a lot is at stake.
Internet is working incredibly well also through the pandemic. At the same time we see very challenging developments that are taking place on the internet, so to speak. Like deep fakes. Mis and disinformation. Lots of phenomena deeply troubling, probably to all of us and really go to the root of democratic societies.
All this makes clear that we need internet governance also in the future. And maybe not only internet governance but digital governance. I know an entire academic debate could turn around this question. So I'll leave that out for the moment. But at the core of internet governance really is multistakeholder conversation. Multi stakeholder collaboration. And the IGF is really the prime example to show how this is done, as we can experience here during the day already and in the coming days still.
And this is also well this is really the key for us. And really the basis that everything else is turning around and we really think that we need on one hand to protect it. Because I think it is not it is not given that internet governance in a multi stakeholder way is going forward.
And on the other hand I think it is also necessary to develop it further. Because it would be yeah. Nobody would believe me if I said it is already perfect in every way and we can't fix anything and can't develop it further in any regard.
And this has also been, well, so to speak, the guidelines for the processes that have already taken place. And we're also very important for us in the processes that can are coming. As you said, very much involved in the pact of future. Little less in the Global Digital Compact. But that such a document exists is a major achievement. That countries at U.N. level managed to agree on a document. And we're happy with what we have as a product now. It is not yet implements and this process will or these processes, rather, will also be very important.
But to have such a document I think is really of very big importance. Obviously probably if we had to vote now, not every single country, not every single person or stakeholder is happy with every single of the Global Digital Compact. But this is also something probably not doable at all.
So we are happy with what came out. That something came out and it wasn't really clear from the start or also along the what they we would succeed in doing that.
And there are some elements in there that are particularly important us to. And again they go to the well, to the core as I stated. Multi stakeholder model as mentioned. IGF important stakeholder in discussion. And involvement mentioned in there. And we have something really new that internet shutdowns are not acceptable to these. Lot of important things we agree to on a very broad basis.
Implementation will be important now. And I think it is pretty challenging as well. As probably the rule on such a high level and with so many partners involved. That not everything is clear yet. But we need really to work hard to figure out how is all this working. And how can all this fit together? And this is maybe the major challenge that we see, that we it would be it would not be helpful to have a bunch of new institutions different fora, discussing the same topics with different players. Because I think would make things more difficult and not easier.
In particular if we want stakeholders really to participate, it would be possible. It is hard for governments to cover everything. Yoichi already hinted at it when talking about AI governance which is really a complex picture by now. But even more difficult especially for stakeholders, civil society for example to really cover all those different fora. So we really need focus and really do think that the IGF should not be one important forum for internet government but this forum and premier forum for that. And we try to work on that. Work hard on that.
And we have been having lots of discussions with different partners, different stakeholders on what it would need, how we could develop it further? What could be future IGF or maybe even DGF, digital global forum, could look like. And this is really a process that we want to work hard on.
And well, as you said already, this is one milestone, a major milestone I would say. Implementation remains to be done and is a fragile thing. And things can go well and not so well maybe in this regard. And then there is another process coming up. The WSIS plus 20 review. And this is also very important because indeed we have to decide how we will go on with the IGF. How will it look in the future?
And this is very important to us as well. And therefore, well, we as a government try to be as involved, as engaged as possible. So we became, or we will be becoming next year which is right around the corner, a member of the commission on science and technology for development. Quite an important role to play in this process. So we try to be involved there.
But what we also find important and I think there is probably still room to manoeuvre or for improvement if we look back to the GDC process. It is really important to involve stakeholders in the process. So if we talk about multi stakeholder collaboration and how this can be done and the meaningful way in the future, we certainly cannot do it without involving all those players.
So this is something we really hope to do. Not alone. Definitely not alone. Together with partners. And, well, I think as much conversations that we have in this regard, also on how to convince, really, people and governments, but also outside governments that this is really an important moment in time. And it is really counting whether we get it right or wrong now. Not just for us for something we find important. But for something that is so basic for everybody and the world.
I think this is really important.
And we're really looking forward to well to do our part of the job. But also to work together. Yeah, with partners, with stakeholders. To find a good solution there. And yeah, for that. Obviously it is also important. I mean, to have these conversations and as many fora as we can to really get a sense of what is important and what is maybe less important.
And that is also why we're very much looking forward to the Canadian presidency of the G7. Because I think this is one of the fora we can really talk and strategize of how we can get that right.
>> TIMEA SUTO: With that I think it is best if I just give you the microphone.
>> Thanks. It is really good to be here. It is really good to be learning from multi stakeholders and really great for an education about what happens in all the different parts of society. And business and government and for all people in managing this resource that we share collectively in the internet and digital space.
And quite frankly, it is exhausting to hear about it all. And I'm not going repeat all the progress that has been made because you have heard about it all here from people who have been part of the process or even leading the process.
The contribution I'd like to make to this is from the perspective of where I sit. So I am Canada's senior official on cyber. Critical tech. And I also have responsibility for democratic resilience in the government of Canada. And I sit in the international security branch of our foreign ministry. And I work for our political director.
So my perspective on progress and the year ahead is from that seat. And also in being in Canada yes the next President of the G7.
I'd like the call our attention to the context for the work over the next year. I they we're in context where actually it ain't broke. The internet works. The internet I think is working a heck of a lot better than the technology in this room today.
And it wasn't until I started this job they realised just how much complexity there is to making it work. So there is many we have many sayings about this problem that we're studying right now in English. You know if ain't broke don't fix it. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Leave well enough alone.
It is not to say, as my colleagues have said, that there isn't room for improvement. But we are in a context where we can all talk to each other.
I have a trainer who lives in Kyiv. I work out with him three times a week. The Zoom works. The encrypted texting works. And I can send him money once a month. And when I tried to send him money at an address that was of a bank that was in a part of Ukraine that is occupied, I wasn't allowed to send money.
So we see every day in our lives that there are really that the internet works. So that is my first point.
The second thing that has struck me is extent to which geopolitical strategic competition is playing out in this sphere. And it is playing out as the most strategic levels. And it is playing out at the most practical levels. And what I'm very heartened to hear is actually when it comes to the practical, it works. This is an area where there is still trust. This is an area where countries that have very different ideas about how this universe should work still manage to cooperate. Because it is at that very practical level that we see what the benefit of the current system that we is to all of us.
We feel that the benefits. But we also must pay attention.
The third bit of context is that there is real urgency to this work. Like, there is serious urgency to it. Why? Because the technology is not waiting for us to figure it out. It is not waiting for policy frameworks or for our legislative frameworks or for us to anything your out hue we're going to co things together.
The technology is dual use tech knowledge. As Thomas said. We've done this before but never have had we had the speed of the dual use technology. So it is imperative for us to deal with technology like AI.
And thirdly, as the opening speaker said, we are living a crisis of the multi lateral system. And over the next year, the multi lateral system needs to figure out some of these questions. And whether that system breaks or survives will be born out in these discussions.
The last thing, is that there is a real even in something as hard edged as the international security world. There is a real recognition that what we're talking about is a global public good that must be shared. That our security, the stability of the world, is not furthered. Unless we share the benefits of the technology and the benefits of connectivity, the benefits of the internet.
And so insuring participation of the global majority at all governance tables is really important. And certainly, doing development differently with the tools, the new tools we have, is not... is the only option that we have.
So the your ahead has lots of opportunities. Yes Canada will continue to focus on AI in particular. And we really think the Japanese and the Italians for making significant progress and working tirelessly in that urgent way that the subject matter demands.
WSIS plus 20. You all know it better than I do what is at stake there. (?) IGF. Then there is the definition how we're going implement the GDC commitments on AI. The scientific panel. And the global dialogue.
How those are defined formed, will define function. And so these are this is a real opportunity.
And in all of that, Canada will be active because of the urgency of the situation. We will uphold fervently multistakeholderism. We will look to do things that advance the SDGs. We will advocate for transparency in all of these processes. And we will do it because we recognise that trust is absolutely critical. Trust between every aspect of the puzzle that sits on this stage. Trust with our citizens. Trust between different parts of the world.
And I will just conclude by saying this next year is really an inflection point. There is an awful lot going on. It is goings to test our resolve. It will make or break some of the governance that we have that has done very well. And I think it is going to be a year where that geopolitical strategic competition continues to play itself out.
And managing that. Managing the pace of change. Managing the urgency, the demands and the commitments will continue to be exhausting. But we've done it before. We'll just keep doing it again.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you so much. I'm going to ask you pass the microphone to the end of the road. Thank you so much.
>> We're good?
Thank you. And I know that I'm the last speaker. So I will not take much of time, especially that I'm engineer. So as an engineer we usually don't manage to get so many words to speak about. But we like to talk in numbers.
So just to share with you some kind of numbers about the mobile industry that I am representing in this gathering. That currently 96% of the world population is covered by mobile coverage and mobile broadband coverage.
Actually 4.6 billion people. Almost 57% of the global population. Access the internet primarily through mobile broadband. And I believe that this percentage of 57% will go even higher when we are talking about developing countries, where mobile coverage is much wider and much more reachable and affordable to people compared to fibre connectivity and other means for internet access.
Yet we are facing a challenge that the original WSIS document reflects the time that it was written in the early days of the information society. So it doesn't really recognise the key role that mobile has come to play in the community and businesses around the world.
When we are talking about SDGs, again using some numbers to describe the impact that the mobile industry is contributing to the SDGs. The figure we have shows the mobile industry achieved almost 58% of its potential contribution to SDGs. Up from 31% from 2015.
We are trying to measure what direction or what dimension that we were mostly impactful. Where we were most impactful. And we found that SDG 9, related to industry innovation and infrastructure, is where we were most impactful. Mainly driven by the reach of the mobile.
By end of 2023, the Chair of the mobile population without internet broadband coverage is less than 4%. 350 million people. While 57% of the world population are actually using the mobile broadband as we mentioned before.
So the use of mobile is not only limited to connectivity or accessing the internet as you have mentioned. Financial services are actually a major area where mobile industry has made a impactful contribution. With almost 3 billion people. More than 50% of the mobile subscribers are actually using mobile money and mobile banking services by 2023.
Yet we hope that throughout the process there will be a real multi stakeholder approach when it comes to the way forward in order to connect the rest of the people. Where as we, the mobile operators and the mobile industry, are projected to spend about $1.5 trillion over the period from now till the end of 2030. There remains a gap between the projected investment and that needed to realise the government's digital policy objectives.
Especially when we are taking into consideration the growing need for broadband. I mean when we are talking about broadband now, it is completely different experience than the broadband that we'll need to experience in 2030 when the meta verse will be realised and when we are talking about this new technology.
So in order to realise this technologies, we have or we need to think about new means for financing this connectivity and for creating an environment that will enable that. And we hope that the review of the WSIS plus 20 will recognise this and will encourage governments and other stakeholders to contribute to this investment gap that we are witnessing. And we are trying to bridge in order to really leave nobody behind.
Thank you.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you Amr.
So we've had three speakers talk about taking stock of actual governance conversations that happened this year and looking ahead for WSIS plus 20.
So what I've noted here as you were talking is couple of takeaways. Of how we...
(Audio dropped).
New structures but better coordination of what is already out there.
You have talked about the importance of informed policy making and the need to have stakeholders contribute to that. You have talked about making sure that we don't throw babies out with bath waters and we actually make that we preserve the core of what is actually working, the technology. And adjust and make sure that our policy and regulatory frameworks enable the technology to continue on working and not pose extra barriers to that.
And you have all mentioned multistakeholders and multi stakeholders input to policy making. Multistakeholderism and the approach to policy conversations. But also the multi stakeholder approach to implementation, whether that comes in forging partnerships. Whether that comes in making the investments that are necessary. Or in making sure that the policy frameworks that we come up actually enable the technology to work.
Enable those without a voice to have a conversation. And enable the innovation that we need to balance out with the potential areas where we want to address risks.
So a lot of rich ideas coming out from the panel. But we have about 15 minutes to hear a little bit from the audience. On how you see the road going forward. Are these are right elements that we should take away from this panel discussion to move into the WSIS plus 20 process or the GDC implementation? Do you have other ideas? Do you have remaining questions to our speak?
So I would like to turn it to our audience and I hope our colleagues are also ready to share the microphone with you all so that you can speak. Are there any questions?
Comments from the floor?
Raise your hand, we'll get you a microphone.
There is a question for Jorge and then for Desiree. Microphone please there.
Thank you. There in the back. Yeah.
>> I hope you hear me okay.
So I just wanted to break the ice. But I saw that Desiree also raised her hand, so I'll be very brief. I think it would be really great, well, Jorge, Swiss government, to pass a very clear message coming from this IGF. And I think we've been hearing it. In your panel. The first one is that we are still very deeply committed to vision that was laid out in WSIS of human centric information society at digital society. That we want to work towards that goal.
That we have to update, of course, the substance of what we agreed 20 years ago. What we reviewed 10 years ago. Looking into connectivity. What it means today. The human rights implications of our digital world. On data governance. On AI governance.
And you cannot have the one without the other. And that we are eager to update also the structures we have to govern this. That we have a very good basis with WSIS. That there is a good impulse with the new chapter written by the GDC. But it is just a chapter, a new chapter in a work we've been writing for 20 years.
That we are ready to be innovative and how we update the multi stakeholder approach of doing things. We have good ideas coming. For instance, from the Sao Paulo multi stakeholder guidelines that were agreed in Sao Paulo earlier this year. And that it is very important to commit to a non proliferation of processes.
Because more process, more governance kills inclusivity. And you wouldn't have two spoons in a Swiss Army knife. So let's be functional. Let's respect the forums. And let's avoid duplications that are unnecessary.
Thank you.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you Jorge. We have the question there from Desiree first and then Berto.
>> Thank you. Name is Desiree. (?). I listen to the takeaways of what's been discussed. And I think much of what you have suggested is seems like a common sense. But also looking forward, in terms of reviewing the WSIS action lines.
Bearing in mind that a lot of good things are already in the document laid out in the agenda and Geneva plan of action. What does the panel think about gender as an issue? What it there in 2003 and 2005? Because we're talking about inclusivity and digital inclusion. And I wonder whether that is something that the panel thinks should also be an issue to be discussed? WSIS lines good and see how much the progress is done. But I think I single out that particular issue. Thank you.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you Desiree.
>> Hi. Petro. There is a lot of issues going to be addressed in the context of WSIS plus 20 and other aspect. I like very much the comments about it is going to be an inflection point. And I hope it will be an inflection point.
We're taking stock of 20 years. And some of us have been here for those 20 years. Even here I have the bag of the first IGF of 2006 which is a testimony of the sustainability approach they adopted by the way.
Kudos to Marcus.
That is a private joke for those of you who were there.
But more seriously, among all those issues, there is one topic that I think is of particular importance. Which is, what is going to be the future of the IGF? Not only just the continuation. But how do we improve it? Restructure it?
Isn't it time to have a serious discussion? Maybe a little bit like the working group on internet governance back in 2004. To have a dedicated effort. Not just a series of reports. Some very good but let's be honest. Most of them have been filed the moment they were assigned. Having a group that could after the WSIS plus 20 review discuss seriously what is the new mandate for the IGF? What is the new structure? What is the institutional arrangement that will be set in place?
We know, and I finish with this, that there will be no agreement from the start by all governments. And therefore I think that there is a particular role for the governments who have hosted the IGF, who have made the effort to host the IGF. And that includes Japan, includes Germany, includes Switzerland. And to the countries who will be in presidency of different groups. And that includes Canada for the G7. To put their weight behind an effort that could take place at the IGF in Norway, in the middle of the year, to send a clear message to the drafters of the resolution in the U.N. general assembly that there needs to be a paragraph that says it is time to have a serious discussion on the new mandate.
And we will have 2026 to really discuss this in a multi stakeholder manner and not just a discussion in New York among the governments.
I think it is an important element in the agenda. Doesn't exclude all other topics, but I'm just taking the opportunity of having a few key governments here on the panel to raise the idea.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you.
Jaques please. And then back to the panel.
>> My name is Jaques (?). I'm speaking here with my hat as member of the board of euro deck and co Chair of Swiss IGF. And I would like to emphasise my question on the definition of stakeholder.
I thought it pretty demanding to follow what all has been said. Now in the past two hours. And explaining this to stakeholders might be quite difficult. Now what do we see as a stakeholder? Are stakeholders just saying well, they are just different groups represented by the top most possible understanding bodies? Or in the future of the IGF still the little citizen, the corporate citizen, the (?) of the stakeholder process.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you, Jaques. I'm going turn back to the panel. And we've had four types of intervention. Four questions. But I think all move in the same direction really. I like how he put, future doesn't have to equal only continuation. Future needs to mean some progress or improvement.
So how do we take that? And this is going to be my final question to the panel. And you can chick and choose which question you want to elaborate more on. This but what do we take from our discussions as a hope for improvement as we look into the future?
How do we improve the existing WSIS action lines? How do we improve the inclusion of various stakeholders or definition of various stakeholders? How do we improve governance models? How do we improve IGF mandate? And how do we improve inclusion, especially gender inclusion?
What are your one sentence takeaways. Or I know now the X limit is longer. So I 140 characters. But what are your short takeaways with views to improvement as we move to WSIS plus 20? So I'm going to start, Flavia you volunteer sod with you.
>> FLAVIA ALVES: Sure. I want to start with the comments which is made about WSIS in the interoperability or getting all governments from groups together at IGF. This is a great idea.
In fact, from what we understand is Norway is planning to do that. Similar to last time, to put group together to have documents so discuss at the IGF.
As I spoke today there are several international frameworks around AI. Not only AI. Several other issues. So crucial for these groups to get together to see how interoperability can exist.
Even the working methodologies for us we don't have enough time or all various issues. And in addition to that. I think it will be important for us to really give a voice for all stakeholders. Sometimes having framework that you invite only stakeholders to speak and provide overview is not necessarily inclusive. We need to give time to provide comments to what is proposed and actually have feedback and getting altogether.
Good example of this is NETmundial. Of course. A document has existed and has been developed again early this year in Brazil. But how can we implement that? So getting stakeholders and host G7, G20, OECD and the U.N. and IGF and others to come. What is it we can do with the IGF together to address that?
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you Flavia. Any volunteers?
>> LARSIA GALADZA: I think on the question of commit to non proliferation of processes, I think it is really incumbent upon ever process to be clear about what its comparative advantages to other processes. Because the decision about what process survives and doesn't is not going to be made by people who participated in all of those because ear all stakeholders. It is going to be made by people who don't understand. And if the comparative advantage of a given process is not clear, it won't survive and perhaps shouldn't. So I think that is incumbent on the IGF to make sure that is clear.
And I think IGF should be as open as possible. Not the top most body but whoever wants to come. It is kind of a low stakes environment. Come and participate. It doesn't crowd the space.
There is a lot of room here.
And in terms of the future of the IGF, I really like the idea that we talk about. What is the new mandate? Because it puts the default at "it is continuing." The question isn't shouldn't it continue? It is "it is continuing and how do we make sure it is fit for purpose." So however that goes forward is important.
As for gender, gender at this point, should be mainstreamed through everything. And that is actually what we should be aiming for. That is how to future proof the issue of gender. In Canada we have a model that does that the issue of gender lens without putting up a lightning rod that says gender.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Arena.
>> IRINA SOEFFKY: I can go on. I have lot of sympathy for many of the suggestions I heard and really have a deep discussion where we want to go, who are going to be relevant actors, how we can also achieve this in practise.
And I do also agree that probably it is a hard thing to do it next year basically. Or even more less than a year. And this is maybe the note of the (?) I want to finish with. Our minimum goal should be there is an IGF with unlimited term. Full stop. And then maybe well looking a back at the GDC discussions, we have seen there are very different ideas and they are strong and it is all about alliance building.
So I would say we should have (?) and probably we can't convince others without having at least a little bit of it. Or show a glimpse of it. But I also think we shouldn't overburden the discussion we have ahead of us. I think we should really focus on the fora of what we want to achieve. And if the trick really having on going process afterwards and really digging into the details, that would be wonderful. But I think really think well, especially having followed New York discussions quite closely. I'm indeed a bit worried that things could also turn in United States different directions.
And I would indeed want to avoid that. And coming to that or coming to conclusion maybe we also well, we also have to be visionary and also have to be tactic. How best to move ahead to build alliances, to convince partners. And I think I'm not decided on that yet. But I think we really have to think hard to (no audio).
... multistakeholder world that we do have.
>> First to start with a reply to Jaques. Yeah. But we thought 20 years ago that the world was complicated. And the internet was something complicated. Looking back now it seems then were quite simple. So what I'm trying to say is we have to basically do the margin walk between trying to be inclusive, trying to be specific. At the same time trying to be understandable to an average person. Although this is a little bit of an illusion if we're honest because we don't have 5 billion average persons sitting here. But we have to try to serve different levels of interest and knowledge.
(In 3 minutes, captioner will stop).
One of the key things of the IGF and what we should not change is IGF's mandate to look into emerging issues on whatever you call it governance. If latest is today's AI, tomorrow will thereby something else. And I think one of the deliverables, one of the first platforms to get new issues on the agenda. Set it on the agenda of others. So this is I think in my view of the core deliverables, inclusivity of course is another thing. Although the question is how do we get those at the table that do not want to be at the table. Not those that cannot. We can fund them and support them. Those that do not want to be at the table is another thing. They may not want to be at the table because others are at the table which I will no knot go into too much detail. But I think a good question is also on the new stuff that is being built around AI.
If AI is part of everything, which it now is, what do you do with the rest? To which is subordinate everything else under the new AI. Or what is the division of work between these new things that will be created an AI and the like there are more legacy things like DIGF and WSIS process but also even more legacy stuff is looking into issues per se for its health or climate or whatever.
And I think maybe not everything is yet fully saw through with the new institutions we're about to create.
>> TIMEA SUTO: Thank you, Thomas.
Maarit, Iida.
San.
>> Quickly. Gender equality is very important. But now look at the panel. Male is minority now. So I'm not talking saying that, you know, gender (?) is not important. Probably need to address some (?) point. In digital space. Women, girl, face a different types of risk and the challenges. Rather than males. So we need to address those challenges and risks and then we may achieve kind of very equally enabling space for both men and women.
That is probably central issue for in the future discussion.