IGF 2025 – Day 2 – Workshop Room 4 – Networking Session #93 Cyber laws and civic space GN-GS advocacy strategies (- RAW)

>> KENNETH MSISKA: It good morning everyone. On behalf of the digital empowerment. Welcome to particular session on cyber laws and civic space. Global north and global south advocacy strategies. Our session today idea is to share among ourselves lived experiences among CSOs or activists that are here. On issues do with cyber laws and how cyber laws are restricting civic space in our countries or in our regions. And so to discuss this in front of me, I have our panelists. Daniela from DRI. Part of the strengthening neighboring involvement initiative, cofunded by the EU. Christian Leong from internet Bolivia. Patricia Ainembabazi from CIPESA. I have Juan Diego from charisma Columbia and Abed Kataya from Cipesa, Lebanon. Also be assisted by my colleagues Stephaine an from Diplo. Online moderator. So STEPHAN is going to discuss we have anything it from our on line participants please do let me know. Before I forget we also have BI MS. RA online. Couldn't make it physical joining online. Go to him so share his perspectives.

Kickstart our discussion, this morning, I'll start with you Abed. Recently conducted case study for the many rhyme on look at cyber laws making this at that region. Share based on your experience, some of the issues that came out of that particular case study. Thank you.

>> ABED KATAYA: Thank you. Good morning. Everyone. MENA reason on, we noticed that cybercrime laws are being issued, we have big threat when it comes to cybercrimes. Comes to cybersecurity in our region because you know, when you have many countries with rich and few and other countries that in conflict with other, so we really need to be aware of the cyber crimes and everything.

Addition to that, a lot of cyber crime attacks as well as scammers attacks on US regions. So this led to the need of cyber crimes laws because there is a huge need there.

Recent years, many governments have been working on showing and also passing cyber crimes laws, but unfortunately, most of these cyber crime laws are beings used to separate civil society general and citizens. Study it's like many countries in our region, Tunisia, Iraq Saudi Arabia some copies are well structure and well put comes to implementation, they are criminalizing online speech. When we are talking, talk about online speech, this means general lists, activists and regular people who are using online platform it's to express themselves.

In addition to that, we found that like in several countries, there is no parliaments so executive power is the only entity that are working on assuming these laws. No engagement from civil society. No engagement from anyone, just passed these laws an regulations.

Other countries, actually, they do here, public consultation with civil society, but then they do whatever they want. Okay we are heard you, sat with you, and then we'll do whatever we want. This is something we when we need to fix.

Also like more examples on a abuse, we see that we really need to focus. Countries like Lebanon we don't have cybercrime court. Criminal court used to penalize cyber crime law or online speech. Even don't have a rule, used to criminalize and used to express other opinions what we need from the government and CSO come out with recommendations share them right now.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: Maybe recommendations later.

>> ABED KATAYA: Later. Okay. This is like what is happening in our region no terms of CSO engagement and intergovernment governance process. Really fighting cyber crime is part of that internet governance. Regulateing have a safe space online for people something we need to regulate. But we don't need it to be oppressive.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you so much. We move to Latin America. We have two representatives on the panel. So Christian internet Bolivia and then come to Juan Diego, Bolivia I'll give you five minutes. Split the five minutes.

>> Pleasure to be here. Latin America catastrophicaloly combined. First thing regulation bad intentions second thing is disproportionate mostly Constitutional actions to protect security. Lack thing is lack of capacity and knowledge and public decisionmakers how regulate technologies.

First one several cases of anti NGO laws that have recently been created in Paraguay, El Salvador, pursue, Venezuela. No attempts it regulate online content passes at legislation against this information. Or hate speech. In the truth laws try to give sensor capacity to government it's.

Of course, all the legislations that endorse strengthening the security measures including surveillance to cameras facial recognition and create a database for the fight against drug trafficking and organized crime among the other cases. The unfortunately from the cyber laws perspective Latin America is playbook what not to do because cyber laws are becoming instruments allow governments all political lines and perspectives to carry out measures only erode our rights and freedoms.

>> Thank you. Maybe something to add is that more increasingly we have laws that are not just cyber laws. We used to have laws that regarding only digital spaces and digital context, increasingly we have discussions on many other issues that may be we as organizations working on the digital space, not used to work with for example, some issues at least for us, in the Latin America context. It was issues of kids protection, for example, this is being increasingly a place from which obviously experience of other parts world ‑‑ this is Juan) we have a lot of laws trying to reclaim parts of digital space and regulate the space.

We have a lot of regulation regarding these issues and then digital organizations we just don't have to contend with the regulators and with the courts on these issues but also, with others civil society options that have been working in other spaces. That is I think one of the main changes in the landscape. So maybe talking about cyber laws example I can EUively about cyber laws something we ‑‑ exclusively) might have to stop doing in the future because it is going to be just laws.

The space going to be flattened. Is going to be flattened.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you so much. Pa issue interest a I understand CIPESA conducts regular studies on the State internet freedom there Africa. What key trend it's or insights have you made from from the studies that have been conducting?

>> PATRICIA AINEMBABAZI: Thank youen Kenneth. I feel the need to CIPESA stands for collaboration on ICT policy for eastern South Africa. For the case those that did not know.

We do have this report that we do every hour we call state of internet freedoms in Africa or CFA and some sets of recurring trend or recurring things point out who ‑‑ point out one being increase this surveillance communication interexemption and shutdowns in Africa. Between 2016 and May 2023 (interceptions j we had about 146 internet shutdowns that we were documented across 37 African countries.

We have seen governments use this thing about internet shutdowns to stifle descent, and hideing behind things like protection and security offices we doe know these are things that are doing are not right for the citizens in those countries.

Also he noticed rise in tech facilitate the gender‑based violence for women and girls as well as increase in the vague or repressive cyber lawyers.

Laws ‑‑ reports with do annually partners work with across the continent. Sub‑Saharan Africa. Noticed that indeed, all of these countries have cyber laws in place, however sort of done in a vague or ambiguous manner. So that the government can only use them to stifle descent and repress people's rights as and when at the want, especially during elections, as well as any little thing that happens in this countries.

The other thing that I should note that we've noticed is the role of big tech or the role of outside energies in this it countries, in these countries expect Google or Meta as well as X, to have a role to play for this citizens and say we cannot do this or that as well as surveillance because we've seen countries in Africa using technology from other countries so to say I'm in the going to mention specific countries but in Europe, as we note, you would expect this technology companies to have like a moral obligation to rise up to the standards of the people.

However, this is something that is not yet being done, not yet being done properly. We do hopes as we go forward, that African countries can have sets and also be able to define what they mean with them say this is, what amounts to violation of maybe what is misinformation, disinformation and violation of laws on the specific dockets they did. Next part of question, I will let that go. Thank you.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you so much Patricia. Coming to Daniela. I do understand that your projects strengthening enabling environment has been implementing area warning mechanism. Which among other things, identifies the if country strengths. Some issues mentioned. Issues that CSO are facial. Could you please did‑facing can you please highlight some issues you gathered so far and share with the audience how you're implementing this warning mechanism. Thank you.

>> DANIELA ALVARADO: Thank you for the kind invitation to follow and the project. Yes, I am part of the use system for enabling environment for civil society. Or EUC. Which is core sore Schulman Schulman national organizations work member working across 86 countries in Africa, Middle East, Asia, Pacific Americas. Caribbean. System tracks developments emerging trends environment for civil society. We monitor six principles, one civil society access to digitalings to and actors can operate freely and same you safety online without censorship, surveillance cyberattacks et cetera. In the past six months. Since we started collecting this information, we have received many consistently and many reports on this issue. Highlighting how cybercrimes laws are being misused to restrict civil space and Civil Society in our network members.

I'm going to mention some examples on that. January of this year, received report from Pakistan at the beginning of year, parliament amended its cyber crime legislation which is known as prevention of electronic crimes act and it introduced new criminal offense related to distribution of false and defriends and family Tori. Remove content online. And deinflammatory. Particular example of misuse came in April. Report from received from Nato member. Investigative journalist AMAD was charged under this law three tonight council it's signer terrorism, defamation of institution the reporting to alleged military corruption. Report from Zambia, I think, Zambia gained attention. The parliament also passed two controversy bills cybersecurity and crime, cybercrimes bills. Despite strong opposition from civil society organizations who criticized bills, vague and overly broad language, granting surveillance powers to the government, and bills didn't really include oversight mechanisms to gave guard against privacy information. Passed almost with little public engagement or transparency to the extent gained wide offer attention only after embassy secured alert about this issue. Meanwhile, Myanmar law implemented new cybersecurity law was implemented consolidating control over dedigital spaces occur tile tailing satellite security. Sierra Leone, arrested live on TV show for criticizing President and also was carjacked under the cybersecurity charged under the cybersecurity act 2021. Charges later withdrawn followed by advocacy campaign from civil society groups the demonstrates how cybersecurity laws can have a chilling effect on civil society freedom.

Many examples and quickly to finish many think ‑‑ Sierra Leone j partners cyber laws and must use of cyber laws have use of vague and overly broad language, creation of powerfulen forcement authorities adding a lot of enforcement power to already existing authorities and lack of meaningful consultation with civil society groups or consultations purely symbol intergovernment agreement, arbitrary ‑‑ symbolic) arbitrary applications when laws issued. Strong safeguards with regarding like privacy violations or violations from the mental rights. Post here. Which can continue discussing more advocacy strategies in the next.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you so much. Going online now, if you can help us, BIMSAR. Works for SARVODAYA‑fusion. Share your perspective from the Asia region.

>> BIMSARA MALSHAN: Thank you. Hopefully I'm with everyone. Actually when it comes to project, one of the organizations representing actually only actually only Southeast Asia region. (non‑English language) topic and civil society based IGF quiet law in our region.

Successfully completed programs and as a second part of this project, he with are targeting couple of initiated projects ‑‑ enhance the person with disabilities engagement with IG processing, inengagementment among the academia of our region. Targeted enhance providing budgeting symposium. Our region also, we also see couple of internet breakdowns social media breakdowns past years. So hopefully, dip will he foundation, hoping to ‑‑ Diplo Foundation hoping to conduct case study. This year, able to publish a comprehensive study do to do that. Thank you for this opportunity. Actual.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you so much. We have five minutes to get quick reactions from the audience. Two mics. One which is on your left. Which is my right. And then the other one there. If there is anything, pending comment, question, to our speakers invited you to move to those mics. Anyone?

>> Thank you everybody for the presentation so far. MIMAR from objection familiar. Couple of mentioned OXFAM international companies or multi‑national companies have a role to play in some of these restriction on civic space and abuse of cyber laws. I'm also wondering in your experiences, the role of outside governments. Or international institutions. Have you been engaging with those, help with your strategy issues or government of your respective countries, take issue when is there international pressure from governments or international institutions? Thank you.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you. Any more from the audience? Go ahead David.

>> David: Hello. Can you hear me? Thank you so much for the presentation and the interventions my name is David and I work with European system for enabling environment for civil society. Quickly, issues that were raised by the panelist especially internet restrictions and other digital restrictions including the law on legislation, same way we preempt restrictions in the physical space, maybe protest and goverment attacks, are there ways in which your organizations preempt these restrictions and secondly, the Keola colleague from CIPESA. Good to listen to the states about internet restrictions across internet. When you document these restriction what happens after that? Do you provide any kind of support to civil society do I know organizations that you know, like keep it on coalition, are you part of such coalitions that provide responses when they shutdowns given the impact not just on civic space but on health, education, and almost all as pets of life ‑‑ aspects of life?

>> Thank you so much David. Okay.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: I think I can go to our speakers. So I'll start with you. Patricia. You've got to think two. I don't know if you attempt the other one. Other one is just asking everyone to say what are we doing about these things. Which is I think where we're going next.

You combine his two questions and then you also share with us what do you think some of the strategies that we can take on board it in order to address the issues that we have come up with.

>> PATRICIA AINEMBABAZI: Thank you. First question about the role intermediaries, talking about outside forces, on the African front, we have a new development. African union come up with a resolution 630, that looks at bowl states having to hold tech companies accountable. As such, would be whole) expecting ability on their part. What are they doing in the countries understand laws of land. Therefore harm or good? Really good measure we noticed and documented at CIPESA. Internet shutdowns, it's also we also have actually a good success story. We continue to work with different coalitions, CAPITON one of them. Gone ahead to work with human rights lawyers activists as well as judiciaries different countries.

You talk about apart from documenting judiciaries, what next do we do. Support and worked with partners like media defense and UpNest international. Success stories from the echo court where rulings were to rights of people in this countries. We have countries like Nigeria, Lagos and rest and Guinea internet shutdowns around elections and other, things that happen in the countries.

So we do not only document, we also go ahead to advise on the next steps and those work with the different countries or different partners that we have in this countries to come up with solutions. We do training, we do capacity‑building in all forms. I think the other question would also be answered by the rest. Thank you.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: All right. I'll go to Danielle. Apart from sharing strategies I also want you to weigh in on I think what David asked to say in terms of what are we doing about? For the EU project, could you share countries this project how big is EUC project?

>> DANIELA ALVARADO: Network members in 86 countries. As I said, in Africa, Middle East Americas and Carribean and Asia and Pacific. I think under this EUC project, one of the first things we started to do, is to build coalitions or to do provide spaces for all of these network members to share and exchange experiences about this. Because as we have seen, during the discussion, this is different in each country but it has like a very clear pattern of how these laws are enacted and how these laws are used.

Very rantly last week, recently last week, held a conversation with Network members on the use of cybersecurity laws in each different countries and we discussed importance of building this international international and global coalitions for a topic has consistent patterns across different countries.

I think that is very first step to start building these coalitions, having these discussions.

Second step tried to use coalition on platforms to influence, regulation on this topic at the international level. So very recently, it was a adopted the UN cyber crime convention for example, and despite many concerns from human rights actors and civil society actors, some of the things that were in the final draft, draft, still raises concerns about broad language, about clauses that may open the door for things that could be misused.

So second step I will say is again, trying to influence as much as possibles instruments international instruments dealing with these topics. Because those become somehow standards then for the governments.

Finally, I think what Patricia was saying super clear and discussing these meeting that we had last week with our network members, importance of strategic litigation and engages with judiciary authorities in the different countries because many of these laws are direct violations of the principles of legality of nondiscrimination, legitimate propositionality discussed that yesterday as well. Think violations are very clear and engaging with the judiciaries and litigations violate effective form where possible to deal with these issues with the judiciaries.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: Also presenting ReCIPE initiative, sister initiative to the care project. Would you also, weigh in in terms of what you're doing as internet Bolivia and ReCIPE.

>> Sure. Same as, I think I have to mention two example one was within Latin America coalition of 11 organizations working towards internet rights. Reorganize working groups to advocate different international forums. One was in relation to the UN international cybercrime treaty. For this, we created this mechanisms, it was called brain trust, that which organize together with SCOs from the Global North, campaign together. And even though treaty ended as we know, at least I think this was very good practice that we can replicate in other international forums. And this coalition also allowed us to through policy calls, to share in trustful way own learning in these forum.

Another example is project in which we are part, is similar project, organizations from the global south, we are working to together with organizations from the Global North, such as OXAM Diplo Foundation to exchange and capture capacities and resources relation to common objectives.

Coalition really work. Not telling you anything new. Or anything really novelty but things that have proven to work especially in a moment which we know governance, global governance is in crisis. But at least civil society organizations are forging networks and collaborations across the globe that we need ‑‑ maybe this Abed Kataya).

>> KENNETH MSISKA: Coming to you, could you please share what you're doing. Charisma based in Columbia. What are you doing about the issues we just discussed here? It.

>> Juan: Christian mentioned one of the big things we're doing. Which is participating on these coalition called ensure. But I think engaging a lot, with other organizations. Having these conversations, is something that is actually helping a lot our advocacy efforts.

Ones issues we've been having a lot is we monitor more than or at least 100 every irdifficults for initiatives every legislative period in Columbia. How the spectrum of legislation and other initiatives we follow has been broadened.

It is issue of how to stay ahead of the many initiatives legislation that we have the trying to think about how your local cases, local experiences, can help other processing and other organizations that are on the same level, or in broader scope, regional or global scope, helps a lot.

We have for example, in the same cyber crime convention, that was not so good example because we shared resources with other bigger organizations, for example, electronic Frontier foundation could have person following immediately all of these discussions and something other organizations like ours couldn't do. So this way of bringing the conversation and keeping up with it, like minute by minute could help us really engage with the whole process because it's something otherwise we couldn't do so easily. These are the type of things that I found we have found very practical that could help a lot of the participation of citizens organizations from the south into other conversations at that otherwise wouldn't have the resources to attend.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you so much. Coming to you ABED. Apart from sharing with us recommendations that you wanted to share.

Also want you to address are your mentioned issue of executive dominance in terms of making the laws. What are you doing about it?

>> ABED KATAYA: First I would like to answer MIA question because something that I would like to share. Which is like when it can comes to foreign pressure and also, the pressure from tech companies, actually, what we need is grassroots change, not pressure from government. Because really believe this pressure would be governments and even local authorities would respond somehow positively to the foreign pressure, but they would do whatever they want.

In addition did that really see that ‑‑ in addition to that, foreign governments do the pressure whatever they fit them. Not what they fit local society.

When it comes to tech company, reel are really don't care about human rights. Need to be harnessed. Seen a lot of cases in Egypt and Jordan, where activists and influencers were being put in jail, and each out to these companies, they don't react, they did not even respond to this request. And they had several meetings with authorities during the same time of these incidents and did not raise any issues regarding these influencers. Users are generating money for them as platforms. What they care about is only to stay in the countries and generate money. That's it.

Some coming back to your question, Kenneth.  regarding executive, powerful executive actually, as I said, mentioned here, we need grass roots change, grass roots reform which requires the CSOs to be more active to be more engaged with society. Know more about the local legislations and local dynamics because you know, I know we are living in tough countries but really have to understand the dynamics and build these relationships and somehow to change things and other times, to coordinate with some people who policymakers, and not to be in conflict with them all the time. Need governments to have upper engagement channels. Really need to open ‑‑ have the channels. Sometimes I think don't work. Sometimes channels are just for the sake of just exposure or something. Like propaganda. We need them. Need them to understand importance of this.

As from all discussions today, really civil society, we mentioned to them sometimes not only rights but economic benefits of being open, of being like advocates for data protection and privacy because nowadays, system really need to be data protection oriented to have successful business. So this is something that we need to do.

In addition to that, governments should uphold human rights and should human rights top of everything, they do as policies. So we say human rights, that means everything for the sake of people @sake of regular users.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: Over to you. Online. We have a question from BB, ABRUCIN. Partially answered by speakers here ‑‑ this is Stephanie) I will share it. From a communications and citizen participation standpoint, with can you share any effective extras and any effective campaigns in your region that can inspire civil society organizations to act as bridge with communities and shape policies? Thank you.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: Bo wants to take that one? Audience is also invited. Who wants to share any experiences?

>> I can share experiences of over network members. Our ‑‑ I know for example, in Sierra Leone, there was a very successful case. With these social influencer mentioned of advocacy efforts by civil society groups by international actors a lot of movement in social media. That made created like a lot of pressure. In the government to release these persons. This woman. This person. And I think that was successful case. A lot creativity and engaging again national actors but also international actors creating coalitions and adding pressure to governments. So I think that was successful case.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: All right.

>> PATRICIA AINEMBABAZI: In Africa we do have the KIPI DC tone campaignment success campaign to answer that. Led to the strategic litigation seen results it ‑‑ KIPI don't j every organization has added hashtag to that. Thank you.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: I'm getting strategic litigation. Come.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: I'm getting strategic engagements. Could coming up frequently. Is this something that ‑‑ talk about the Global South. Think I heard it first from Daniela. Getting it again from Patricia. What do you think?

>> DANIELA: I think not easy. Depends on how strong the rule of law is ‑‑ in a particular country and how stable the judiciary system is. How independent it is a lot of factors. I think come from Columbia as well. And despite many problems and issues Diego can help me there, but I think still there is for example, we have seen changes through strategic litigation and we have seen a progress and benefits often gauging still with the court assets. ‑‑ of engaging) of course, ad hoc thing you have to, understand in the specific context. At least in some cases, it works.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: Quick one.

>> Head of boards,.

>> STEPHANIE PSAILA: From Diplo. Is the lead partner for the K project. On one hand, here I heard them for instance you said that CSO shouldn't take a confrontation stands with the government because they need to be working together. On other hand, litigation aspect has come up very often. How do we balance this? Between the name of working together but at the same time, we're taking governments to court. So how does that play out? Especially digitally.

>> I can start. Depends every country context. I cannot like I'm showing sharing my experience from the region. Not all regions. Country from the region, same applies to other regions and other countries. You need to engage with the local governments first to know what do they, other than make this government act and make them act in favor of human rights in favor CSO's engagement then see layer how to move and what are the next steps. For example, if I'm talking Lebanon different from Jordan.

>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you. Like I said we are have run out of time. Circulate the sheet of paper. Put our names hope to take this discussion forward. So if you can register your interest, reaching out to you continue this discussion. Thank you so much speakers and those participants who joined us online. And thank you audience and thank you for the technicians for helping us with this session. Thank you.

[applause]

¶¶

¶¶

Book Launch: NETmundial+10 statement in the 6 UN languages.

>> RENATA MIELLI: Good morning and welcome to our session which has kind of a long, title. But will impact later. My name is Renata Mielli. Work with DiploFoundation platform. What we call classic in internet governance Jovan Kurbalija Introduction to Internet Governance, book first published '04. Past years published many languages used as textbooks in many universities around the world. I have quite a lot of people this told me this is how I start learning about intergovernment governance through your book and through some of the forces so congrats for that as well. And so today launching new edition of this book. By the about a and while he will to so he will also explain probably one of the the controversy things has been discussed this space for the last two years intergovernment governance is digital governance. End economy between them or not and why is Jovan still calling his book introduction to intergovernment governance is talking about A.I. governance. Data governance. Digital governance bunch of other stuff. I'm not very good in phrasing I should have prepared little speech. But really, I do inencourage. EU everyone to take a look at this short excerpt and then the book will be available soon online. Have a list of colleagues a list around. Share your email addresses share the full book to with you. And over to you. Why did you still want to write a book, how many years after the previous editions?

>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Why intergovernment governance. Fortunately, that's done. Last edition was 2016 and it helps some people to understand what is going on. To get into intergovernment governance. It's enough. Seventh edition. Translated in 11 languages and I was proud. Jean Carlos Ferreira dos Santos. This book helped me to get into intergovernment governance and digital governance biggest achievement in my career. Could sound small thing but remarkable. Sometimes this book started first edition started when probably you heard it when friends of mine, telling them what I was doing, they were inviting me to fix their printer. Install their software back 23 or 24 years not exactly what I'm doing. Years ago. Install printer and software. Then explain what it is it about. Two years ago, A.I. wave, I realized that confusion is increasing. And I said, wow, I should gain again get back and writing something.

Then I'm born procrastinator. Took time. By the lazy. Then A.I. helped. Tell you how A.I. helped me. Not written by A.I. Don't worry. But I came said okay, I will write to. Edition. And then I started writing it. Realized that one partly wrote, and it became obsolete by basically, Inc. dry. Said I cannot write this way. I have invent something else I used Chinese Japanese word Kaizan. Explains constant improvements and constant development. Therefore, one interesting aspects before I move to the book ‑‑ this is heart how I did it. I said, okay I cannot write it sent to editors spent two years. Everything will be different. In digital world. Frankly speaking, most digital A.I. books these days are becoming obsolete before their published whole grave yards. Academia think the way publishing. How I did it. I have IG book. My starting point. It has to be revisited and I will focus on changes over nine years. Which is important to see things into perspective. And I said, I will use A.I. via Diplo developed model based on my writing and Zoom calls and my way of framing issues, how I do, am I inductedee or deductive thinking. What type of sentences I use long and short. What type of condense music in writing I've been using. Okay. Let me use it.

At least not nobody can blame me book written by A.I. because I wrote 7 editions. Then I realized okay, what we have to do is to have one point in time, this is this point, closure. And this why I printed version is useful. You create closure. At this point, this is my thinking. In June, 2025, on issues A.I. governance, digital governance, cybersecurity continue us update publishing style. A.I. going on the net. Here is article in academia policy statement that WSIS. Constant updates till the moment that you create again closure. And this is basically how the publishing works.

Now, I'm also begun, leg in academic community, research, community will have to go profound change because of impact. A.I. Old, way publishing isn't going to work. We need prior review. Need quality control. Checking things not before book publishing takes one‑and‑a‑half. From the book he expert by book register by signing and receive link to the online version which you can download. And you will receive also Link to skies an space continues updates are done.

Let me give you one example. Had a section on the WSIS future of WSIS. And I covered more or less all aspects. But then you come here and you have completely new insights. You have new views and then what I wrote is my summary of the future of WSIS. 10 days ago, it's already obsolete sense final menial arguments new metaphores new framework of.

>>. Particularly official us on the framing. Framing of the issues for example on the parameters how we deal with the policy dynamic is critical. This is history of survey how the book started and why I decided to write it start writing two years ago. Because I confusion around A.I. is enormous. Sort it out somehow.

Then I said, okay how to call the book. My friends brand specialist, don't call intergovernment governance. Nobody knows what is internet. Everything is digital. A.I. governance. Cutting edge governance. This and that. I said, okay. That's legitimate point. And then I started moving in very semantical knowledge, very beginning of the publication answered question why it is still internet governance.

>> went into analysis and you know, I like to use pyramids went to the basement, basic basic terminology information and communication technology. It's anything from the pigeon to the telegraph, till A.I. And if you see UN still using ICT, it's interesting. UN is basically most precise broader terms. Move up you have electric signals. Telegraph basically. Then you move up, have a digital. Zeros and ones. Then you move up, you come to internet. And up you come to A.I.

Now, the calling it ICT would be too broad. Calling it electric would be also too broad. Digital was a candidate. I had dilemma between digital and internet arguments for both.

My argument is for internet prevailed because most of the governance issues related to digital are related to internet. Yes. You can have A.I. far more. You can have whatever but ultimately, it comes to us through it.

CIP. Through internet protocol TCIP. This information, e‑commerce governance everything else. Deliver I think internet is still least imprecise, therefore therefore I think description what we are discussing today. Digital would be correct but broader. Logic if you can find specific term. Use specific term. Don't go for broader terms.

As you know, confusion is you have A.I. governance, cyber governance and digital. You know how it works. Academics want to create new research field, book, just invent new terms policymaker want to make initiative become A.I. ambassador digital ambassador other things. How it is. very human put it this way. Therefore, that could be interesting point. If you agree with my point, why I still call it internet governance. Not digital governance. Not A.I. governance. Although, advice from the brand Advisor was to use A.I. governance because it's very topic.

Now, in the book, I start with my old I should have used Powerpoint. My building, building with 7 floors. 50 issues. And then the first part is internet evolution. Here is fascinating insight. Sometimes obsessed that everything is happening in now and here. It's a business of narcism, very natural. I'm sorry. Excited, world is changing part of process. Everything is happening here when you really step back, you realize few things. Technological governance is very let's say, constant glaze across the time. I'll give you two examples. Nowadays we discuss, impact of the Trump administration on digitalization A.I. But if you really analyze, you can see that U.S. digital policy has not changed since and I'm highlighting, since 1892. Nineteenth century when United States joined the St. Petersburg meeting of international communication union. Rhetoric is the same. Innovation, low governance, business interests. At that time in the other blocks, European countries postal telegraph unions. UK, Frances, Germany. Between two actors.

Fast forward, the change, US policy was so‑called titanic moment. They decided because of shear power of the shock that titanic sinking created, they decided to adopt radio telecommunication still in the force today. Apparently, increasingly controversial because of satellites business.

Now, fast forward, you come to 1998. And all digital, internet, ICT governance regimes. We discussed today were set within the three months of the 1998 in September, beginning of September 1998, Google was established. Icon third week of the September 1998. Table cybersecurity resolution on the 30^th September, 1998, which led to the UN government group of expert open‑ended working group, the process which is still going on I think next week there be a meeting.

WTO in the same last week. 1998, September 1998, decided about more tower yum. Cuss duties e‑commerce. Custom duties) later in November 19 the 98IT held meeting WSIS. Step back frankly speaking those pillars with. TO or e‑commerce, UNFG for cybersecurity icon for the names and numbers and digital governance are still in place till today.

First really strong it call for all of us not to be, over I have impressed by immediate over impress by immediate, even looks drastic. Everything is changing, pushing the Frontier. Not everything will be the same. We need new governance new technology. Retribution how it goes. It's not as dramatic it looks. Two example. ‑‑ rhetorics) US digital policy and autumn 1998 basis for it.

Fast forward, 2016, when I published last edition of my book. Now I compare what's happened in the meantime. And I realize there were basically four main developments. First one, massive shift of data from our personal computers to cloud. Started before in social media. Accelerated over last nine years. Enormous consequences for governance, freedom, knowledge, policy.

Second one, COVID pandemic which accelerated this suppose we have to move online and work online. Another one is shift from GPU, CPS, central processing unit dominated space to GPU and made people from NVIDIA central processing unit. Intel and AMD and others dominated. GPU individual started developing for game, got the first boost with Bitcoin, block chain and other boost later on with A.I. That's major shifty will say in basis. Satellite connectivity low orbit spotlight satellites artifical intelligence go through each he have these you can see longterm trajectories. Not just shift data towards cloud as enormous impact on digital governance. What's happening governance field? First, UN started and I was part of the process, with high level panel, started this panel process I know have been many criticism, now it's still with GDC versus elephant in the room, small big one, I don't know, I was part of that process when I had a chance to influence some discussions. I was always insisting that we need evolution not revolution. We need IGF plus exist is not to reboot everything. But what I have to highlight for the intergovernment governance community there was a need for something like this. This was a bit of, sometimes you cannot go into rationale decisions, we have IGF, we have WSIS, yes. We have that but policy and politics is sometimes irrational.

You need new energy. You need boost. People asking, diplomat we need to do something specially with this digital governance. What I'm going to report back to the capitol. GDC and that process started in 2018 was needed. I wish we could have steered it by the more in convergence element. That's for another discussion.

Then we had A.I. safety lines with confidence. 2003, A.I. magic. Going to kill humanity. We have to be careful. We need regulation. A.I. is like a topic nuclear energy. Nuclear bomb. All of this.  Metaphores that are used letter by thousand scientists ban development of A.I. All of that. Sitting at the gallery thinking my God, how far is it going to go. Discussion became completely irrational. Come down and that entertainment, Blanche summit safety line if you follow just that, you can see how A.I. evolved. Blatchley security, doomsday scenario, large language models and basically, main tech companies we know dangerous it is. we want governments to regulate. It stop developments. And to trust us that we will save humanity.

Ultimately for different reasons, we didn't react to that. Then there was a confidence cames town in Paris. ‑‑ came down in pairs removed batchly this line of thinking. Blatchley) why is this important Paris j yes of A.I. is important and that evolution is another elephant in the room much we have longterm risks but we have to judge these risks in the context. What are the immediate risks for education system any mentioned for publishing processing, way of justifying through peer review, our thinking and validity in academic world. Jobs and other issues. Those are immediate risks. Midterm Rices Honouliuli concentration of our national in hands few companies. Highlighting knowledge not data. Very important. Midterm risks) come back to this knowledge data dynamics.

Then you have third point, yes, longterm risks. They exist. A.I. may destroy us. May get power. All we can discuss that. Very controversial topic. Let's discuss it in the informed way. There are tools like climate change tools where you can discuss it informed way. A.I. panel which UN is proposing is good way to have a reasonable discussion in this context. Then we have it NVIDIA.

Shift from data to knowledge, WSIS document, knowledge, knowledge, no data here and there. Today's documents full of data, no knowledge. A.I. is about knowledge. Think about that shift. Why we kicked out knowledge from the policy documents. And why we replaced with data. Interesting point.

Last point before is that geopolitics. The internet started most by geopolitics, Sputnik moment, 1957 4 October, US political elite thought wrongly so, that they were losing scientific competition Soviet UN. They created, NASA and one of the most fascinating scientific project that started special union during Kennedy time in the United States. Think that carefully we are closing the circumstance ‑‑ Soviet Union) digital and internet is becoming again geopolitical issues. With negative consequences but also, some reality check.

And that is basically the last point in this summary which you can find in the book shift from the let's say major vested center shaped of discussion towards more Asia, Latin America, Africa also coming, shaping of narratives. Narratives are the key. Use of metaphores other issues. Find in the book knowledge of narratives. We can discuss A.I. if you want to see deeper two through the narratives on that point I advise you to follow Diplo reporting from the this meeting, which among other things, have two elements you will get end of the reporting. One is cliche detector. How many cliches are repeated during meeting. And not narrative shaping. What are the narrative it's met for used to shape. That's basically toolkit. Swiss knife for digital governance. Get the toolkit somebody used met for you know why that person is using met for. What is the policy behind? What is the idea? More inclusive informed impactful digital governance.

>> RENATA MIELLI: Three more minutes. That's going to be a challenge. If anyone in the room wants to add some sort of reflections on what he has been saying ask a question. We have a short time. Try anyone? If not we encourage you are to.

>> JOANNA KULESZA: Us at ‑‑ booth continue to the conversation there. I don't remember the number of booth. Colleague is there. You also shared 40 something. You shared list with emails. So we will be sending the link to all of you have registered. If you don't we have a few copies of the expert of book here if you would like to get it thank you so much everyone. Thank you YOVAN and please join us at the booth.

¶¶

Shaping AI Governance Through Multistakeholder Action.

¶¶

Shaping AI Governance Through Multistakeholder Action ¶¶

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Hello. Welcome to the session. Shaping global A.I. Governance through multistakeholder action pleased to present freedom online coalitions joint statement on artificial intelligence and human rights 2025.

Malaya name is Zach Lampell. I'm senior legal Advisor and coordinator digital write international center for not‑for‑profit law. Digital rights co‑chair freedom online coalition task force and A.I. and human rights with the government of Netherlands and government of Germany.

I want to welcome millenial Rasmus Lumi director enfor international organizations and human rights. With a government of Estonia and the chair freedom online coalition in 2025. Thank you very much. Good morning everybody. It is great honour for me to be here today. To welcome you all. To this session. On issue of A.I. and human rights.

I don't think I'm being original when I say that very fitting for the session that I had chat GPT that I should be sitting here. Read through what it gave to me I decided not to use them. Maybe I am using them. Would you know or would you not know? I think ChatGPT is a great proof how far we've come with A.I. Tools. And now time to make sure that we are able to, put human rights and humans in the center of this development.

It is important to make sure that we do not feel or are deserved by the extremely smart artificial intelligence. And I read through the notes that it offered me, did say all the right things. Totally understand. Right things the question is did it do on purpose is this malicious an not trying to deceive us into thinking that that A.I. also beliefs in human rights?

We'll have to take care of it and this joint statement that we have developed under the leadership of Netherlands is exactly one step in the way of doing this. Putting humans in the center of A.I. development.

I would like to take this opportunity very much thank the Netherlands for leading this discussion, this preparation in the freedom online coalition and I hope that the coalition and also elsewhere, this work will continue in order to make sure that humans and human rights will remain in the focus on technological development. Thank you very much

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Turned floor to Ernst Noorman cyber ambassador for the Netherlands.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you for your words.

>> ERNST NOORMAN: Leader gather in the Hague to discuss defense and security we are here to address, different but equally urgent statistic protecting human rights in the age of A.I, these are not separate. Human right and security, or should be two sides was same coin. When will rights are erode, sick space shrinks, surveillance escapes oversight.

>> When information is manipulated, society don't become safer. You become more unstable. More fragile. Since original FOC statement on A.I., and human rights, in 2020, a lot has happened. I only have to mention inthrow introduction ChatGPT. In November 2022. And how different A.I. tools are evolving every single day. Is it is shaping Governance, policy and daily life. It's benefits are real. But so are the risks. And those risks are no longer theoretical.

We now see A.I. used to represent citizens, so public sector around participate gender‑based violence in some countries these practices are becoming embedded state systems with few checks and less or no transparency. At the same time only hardenful private act torts shape what we see. Influence democratic debate and dominate key markets without meaningful oversight double concentration of power talented both threatened both public trust and democratic resilience. Netherlands together with Germany and international center for not‑for‑profit law has led update of freedom of online coalitions joint statement on artifical intelligence and human rights, great follow all of you governments civil society, private sector experts for the thoughtful contributions that shaped it. Updated statement of joint response, to the present reality is updated, sorry updated statements joint response to the present reality of A.I. R sets out printed and practiced vision humancentric A.I., governance with care, grounded in human right and shaped through inclusive multistakeholder process.

Recognizes that risk arise across A.I. life cycle the no only issues but from design to deployment. And statement calls for clear obligations from both states and private sector. Strong safeguards for those most at risks especially women and girls. Caller for transparency accountable in high impact systems. And for cultural and linguistic inclusion. And attention should be given to environmental and geopolitical dimensions of A.I.

Some claim that raising these issues could hinder innovation. We disagree. Knowing without trust is short‑lived . Innovation respect for rights is not a constraint it's a condition for sustainable inclusive progress. Netherlands learned hard way. Use of strongly bias Welfare administration design to do combat fraud led to most domestic human rights failures. Showed algorithms if not designed and applied correctly, deployed deepen injustice and takes years trying to correct personal harm it caused.

Strengthen our approach avoid similar accidents by applying human rights impact assessments by applying readiness assessment methodology for A.I. human rights with Unesco and by launching national algorithm registry. With now more than a thousand algorithms being registered.

But no country can solve this alone. A.I. transcends borderses so must be our response. As of today, right now, 21 countries have endorsed this joint statement. And we expect more in the days ahead. Text will be published after this session and remain open for further endorsements. Including from nonadvocacy countries.

Let is not stand idley by while others define rules. Let us lead clearly, collectively and with conviction. Human rights but not be afterthought that governance. Must be foundation it's thank you very much. A.I. governance.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Thank you ambassador Ernst Noorman. I think you're absolutely right. Human rights need to be the foundation of A.I. governance. And that was precisely what is fair, task force A.I. human rights with the FOC wanted to do this joint statement. Wanted to build on previous statements, and also, make sure that there is a strong foundation for governance principles now. With actionable clear, recommendations for governments civil society and the private sector.

Really, really pleased with the joint statement and again want to Ned and Germany coleadership with ICL AT fair and online members to support and input to the statement. We have amazing excellent panel today. I want to briefly introduce them and then we'll get into questions. Joining virtually is Maria Adebahr, cyber ambassador of Germany. Again, co‑chair of the task force on A.I. and human rights.

To my right, Mr. Divine Selase Agbeti Director General of the cybersecurity authority of Ghana. And next to him is Dr. Erica Moret director with UN and international organizations at Microsoft.

DN

>> ZACH LAMPELL: First question directed at divine. What is in your view, the most urgent human rights risks, posted by A.I. that this statement addresses?

>> DIVINE SELASE AGBETI: Thank you so much. Firstly I would like to thank the government of Netherlands and also the FOC support unit for extended invitation to Ghana participate in such important conversation.

My view most urgent human risk or the most urgent human rights risk Podestad by A.I. actually, posed by) hello? Okay.

I think is the arbitrary use of A.I. from monitoring, or surveillance and also, the use of A.I. for disinformation. And also, for the suppression of democratic participation.

Particularly whether such is embedded governance structure ‑‑ when such) and within law enforcement systems, without any transparency and accountability. Those two are very important. Look at this, broader fear when this is unchecked and also when the governed by in commercial interests, then what happens is that they erode fundamental freedoms, fundamental human rights. Such as freedom of speech and Brooke Forbes privacy and I think these are the can he ‑‑ and privacy j and think these are the can he human rights concerns COPs to artifical intelligence.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Thank you. and several of those are specifically addressed within the statement including commercial interests, environmental impact, of he artifical intelligence, as well as direct threats to fundamental human rights such as freedom of expression, right to privacy, freedom of association, freedom of assembly and others.

Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us. What convinced you and government of Germany to support statement and what do you hope it will achieve?

>> MAARIA ADEBAHR: Thank you everybody. Over there. I hope you can hear me. Very well. Thank you for having me today. 80s wonderful occasion to present and introduce our joint statement of artifical intelligence and human rights together. Thank you for the opening remarks and thank you together, as a TFAL cochair I would like to thank you all you for coming and joining us in this open forum session.

So having you all here, this is I think it's really important kind of commitment for human rights in the broad multi‑stakeholders participation these days. And this is even to become more important. Let me explain why in doing this, we sometimes it helps to really go back to ask ourselves why do we do this and what led government of Germany to support the statement.

This is very very essence that A.I. sends out as one of the most transformative innovation and challenge and technological thing that we have to confront.

It will always does, change the way we live, work, express and inform ourselves and it will change the way how we form our opinion and exercise our democratic wants.

Already said in times global uncertainty, offers a lot of promise but also risks to people on planet P.

That is why we as countries joining TFair and other fora, have to ask the question, what kind of digital future we want to live in. I have to say really of essence of humancentric role. Nonnegotiable respectfully human rights what we have to strive for. Essence that statement gives us. Let me close. It is world firmly root in and compliance international law including national human rights law. Pairing interests of solely by commercial priorities. And I will leave with wise international governance, we can harness promise that technologies as A.I. give to us and hold harm at bay. Therefore, it is essential to us to support the statement and support principles because we must stand for or with a strong focus on human rights and commitment to human second he centric safe, security and trustworthy approach to technology. If this is not given anywhere in the world so we hope to convince countries civil societies and stalk holders to strive every part of world ‑‑ stakeholders) for you are approach. Crucial right‑hand F for our approach. Crucial and very much the essence what we have to do and I'm also, very happy to have now 21 states on board. This is I think majority and our position even for ‑‑ gives you are position more and let me mention right of women and girls diversity belong to groups post, to more vulnerability by A.I., this is a strong commitment that we really clearly harness.

And wanted to see in there.

So let me close by, looking forward to questions and answers obviously but let me close by saying that on also very happy to announce that Germany is able to double its funding for freedom online coalition. With double amount compared to last year. We work through our budgets negotiated in Germany and so we were able to double the amount. This is something makes me very happy and my colleagues and hopefully, we will make good use of our looking forefor the freedom online coalition and happy note, over to you.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Thank you ambassador. Thank you for doubling the funding for the freedom online coalition. I can speak also a member of the freedom online coalition advisory network and I can say that we all believe that the FOC is true driving force and leading vehicle to promote and protect fundamental freedoms and digital rights. Without the FOC government structures we have today we believe would be be weaker. Looking forward to work with you ambassador as he well as government of Netherlands, as TFair as well as all of the 42 other members of freedom online coalition to continue our important work. And we welcome your leadership and civil society look forwarded to working with you to achieve these aims for everyone. Erica Moret turn to you people had mentioned the commercial interests. That is indeed something that is know noted in the joint statement what responsibility do private tech companies have to prevent A.I. from undermining human rights?

>> ERICA MORET: Thank you government of the Netherlands to the FOC, and excellency as of reel Melanesia to be here today. Working at Microsoft in past life academic and working UN in including various issues in relating to human right and international humanitarian law. Real honor to to be here. As the tech industry represent representative on the panel I would like to address how private sector companies like Microsoft view responsibilities in assuring A.I. respects protecting hula human rights lucky at Microsoft to is series of teams and example he experts work on these areas across the! ‑‑ experts across company newly created technology group and this includes office of responsible A.I., technology for fundamental rights group and privacy safety and regulatedder affairs group. I'll and represent some of our collective work in this area.

In brief we recognize that we must be proactive diligent in every step A.I. use from design to deployment and beyond protect prevent A.I. from being used to violate human rights. Number of key responsibilities that I would like to highlight here for companies to keep in mind when they're working as well with civil society and governments an other stake hold adherence to international standard. Microsoft and many peers example Morita Ally commit to the UN guideline you you principles business and human rights baseline for conduct across global operations for us and other companies involves policy commitment to respect human rights, an ongoing human rights due diligence process that enables to identify and remedy related human rights harms.

These principles make clear that while states must protect human rights, companies have an independent responsibility to respect fundamental rights. The next step is to embed human rights from very beginning. We responsibility to integrate human rights considerations into the design and development of A.I. systems. And really paying attention to areas like already been highlighted in relation to women @girls and other particularly vulnerable groups. Before performing human right assessments and monitoring this invitationals us to identify risks and address them ‑‑ enable us us) establishment and forcement ethical A.I. principles third very important area. Microsoft, we have clearly defined responsible A.I. principles which encompass fairness reliability and safety, privacy and security, inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, which guide all of our A.I. development. And our teams must follow our responsible A.I. standards company wide policy. That translates thee principles in specific requirements ‑‑ these).

Beyond human rights due diligence already mentioned we work on protecting privacy and data security. So safeguarding user the data is nonnegotiable responsibility for our company and also for our peers. A.I. often involves big data so companies must implement privacy by design. Minimizing data collection, securing data storage, and ensuring compliance with privacy laws.

The sixth area I would like to highlight here is the vital importance of fairness and inclusivity. Tech firms have the responsibility for ensuring that their A.I. does not perpetuate bias and discrimination and through working with partners at FOC and across civil society, we can put into measure active safeguards and ongoing work to tackle challenges in that their yeah. Highlight important this area) highlight important note in the state FOC statement, that A.I. harms especially pronounce the for marginalized groups.

Ensuring transparency and explainability 7^th point of what we should be taking into consideration here. So that people understand how decisions are made, and can you'd fight potential ‑‑ identify potential challenges but then also mitigation approaches.

The final area I would like to emphasize here is the need for collaboration. We're facing food and beverage I'll moment in terms of multi‑lat ram ‑‑ fragile) geopolitical tensions around the world and collaboration across borders and sectors has never been more important and so engaging through multistakeholderism is A.I. governance, A.I. regulation, developments is as much our responsibility as anyone else's. I think the more the private sector can be working with civil society and with academia to improve its own work in these areas and contribute as well through things like red teaming, and other types of reporting, this is really important next step I believe in our collective work. Thank you very much.

>>Lucy: thank you. I think.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Holistic approach, from Microsoft is fantastic model that I hope other companies will adopt or model there systems and internal standards after I really do appreciate the final point on collaboration. And next steps.

So with that, ambassador what are the most important next steps to ensure A.I. systems promote human rights and development while avoiding harm?

>> Thank you number of, we can do as governments, as international communities. First, for mostly think important good strong regulation. We know of course international discussion on that. Different views across the ocean about that. ‑‑

>> ERNST NOORMAN: Statement you create level playing field, at the same time you create level playing field, predictability is important. As long as companies also know what the rules are, what the guardrails are, you protect citizens in Europe, and create trust this the products. You think in the products with the EU A.I. act good example. Puts right transparency responsibility at the core. Risk based not blocking innovation, crucial step. Outside European union look at great interest to the Aiu regulation and see how they can adapt it. Aiu continue to work at multilateral UN discussion how to have the implement, oversight, to organize oversights and to ensure safe implementation of A.I. We have council of Europe's A.I. framework convention. Which is next step. Just like we had before on cybercrime, Budapest convention. And I think it's very important to really support UN work on human rights. Especially the office of human rights council, commissioner. Also high commission of human rights is important to keep on supporting them. They have important initiatives which on VTech to promote human rights in VTech) in private sector. These are important steps we have to continue. And Erika Microsoft mentioned UN guiding principles business and human rights is important tool also for the private sector to be used. Finally, as important step too, we as governments play important role with procurements. So we have to use procurements as a tool also to force companies to deliver products which are respectedding human rights which have human rights as a core in their design of their products. Insure that they provide safe products to the governments which are used broadly in the society.

I think that's very concrete step we can use as governments. Thank you very much.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Thank you. Bad. Procurement really great final point to ambassador to mention. Ambassador, same question to you. What are the most important negligence steps that we can take to ensure ITU systems promote human rights and development? While avoiding harm.

>> MAARIA ADEBAHR: Thank you for the question. Ernst even answered it, agree with that just said, moving forward on a lot of fronts and different fora starts with the EU A.I. act implementation and promotion of principles. About we know certain aspects are being discussed especially by industries and worldwide, totally okay, rightfully so. We can start around have a discussion on things like risk management like risk management so on and so forth EU A.I. discussion sparks discussion how we want to manage and govern ourselves with A.I. and with the good and humancentric A.I. accessible for everybody. One part.

Recall as EU member states Unesco recommend recommendations of 2021 are another one and we are looking forward also results of third Global Forum on the ethics of A.I. health and bankrupt at this very moment and would invite all FOC members and interest experts to join the Hamburg declaration on responsible A.I. for the SDGs recently. Would recently stated. Implement agents of the Global Digital Compact regarding discussing modalities resolution and modalities for implementing working groups, panel and worldwide dialogue on A.I. very important to us.

One final point I unfortunately is also tool for trans‑national reexpression and trans‑national repression is phenomena put that like that, we as Germany governments want to focus more on.  it's fairly not new phenomena, it's very, very old, but in terms of digital and A.I., we are reaching new levels unfortunately. And so this is also subject we want to discuss more and bring international fora on the national human rights agenda. Thank you.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Thank ambassador. Director, same question to you. We are the most important next steps to ensure A.I. systems promote human right and yes. Development?

>> DIVINE SELASE AGBETI: Align A.I. with international human rights standards. This that for example, currently, service authorities working with digital protections commission in Ghana to actually explore redress for this. 

Secondly we can look at UN guiding principles on business and human rights that ICCPR cannot international, regional and international efforts to redress global A.I. governance in her respects. In that respect. And look at the multistakeholder foundation, which is foundation to this. Ecosystem must concern civil society to amplify marginal voices, technical communities to bring transparency into our algorithms and academia to provide evidence‑based insights, private sector to ensure responsible innovation as well as youth and indigenous voices to reflect world diversity. Ways to do so fantastic. Thank you so much for very comprehad he comprehensive ideas ambassador and director.

Open up the floor to all of you. We have some time for questions and answers we have a microphone over to my left, your right. We would welcome questions on the joint statement and how best to promote human rights and artifical intelligence.

>> Hello. Like to handle all of these devices. Hello everyone thank you so much for such a great panel and I'm super happy that freedom online coalition together with the private sector is coming up with some not I mean, not call it solutions, but at least some recommendations.

My name is *ZATLANA DCZEMS working an Asia region and I mean basically my work is actually to bring the bridge between civil society and tech and telecoms in Asia. And also, been mentioned today, VTech project which is also a great project was like one of the start of many other initiatives in the tech sector. Hope all of that kind of initiatives will get together, question will be actually to FOC members, representatives, and to the private sector, so for a start, we know that Microsoft works I mean, known as a company which works closely with many governments you have products with you provide operability of those governments. And some countries with oppressive laws and oppressive regimes, it's hard to make sure that the human rights are protected. Human rights of users are protected.

So did do you have any vision how to diminish those risks? Maybe there should be more Civil Society action on that side. Like being more practical on that side. For the FOC side, I mean we've been working with FOC members for several years, starting from Myanmar, were one of the first who engaged FOC members in the statement on the internet shutdowns. FOC what can you do in the side of, I mean, of course statement is great, but like practical way, how we can make sure that human rights are protected on the physical world. Thank you.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Thank you so much. We'll take one more question. Then answer and then if there is time and additional questions, we'll go back. Please, sir.

>> Thank you. Carlos V ERA from IGF Ecuador read declaration in the OC website. It would be nice if we can have some space to comment on the declaration ‑‑ FOC) outside FOC members. And even to sign our support, for that declaration. Some government even doesn't know that FOC exists. So maybe we can also create a warning in civil society space. Thank you very much for the great work.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Thank you so much.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Thank you so much. Great have a meeting with task force A.I. human rights tomorrow. Raise this point see what we can do to have wider adoption from civil society support. Back to the first question. Really question on how we FOC governments, private sector and potentially civil society can protect human rights, regarding A.I. assistties especially in repressive Reggie evens. I hope I regimes hope I got that question correct. Thank you. Societies) anybody would like to start us off. Maybe just kick off. I'm sure others have to want to contribute.

>> ERNST NOORMAN: Off line and offline dilemma. Not specific effect tools by, big tech companies like Microsoft of course, gives provides gives them responsibility to look at guardrails of their tools.

At the same time, platforms are being used for human rights violations, and to threaten people. But it happens offline as well. But the point is as FOC, wherever I go, as cyber ambassador and Maria doing the same, we discuss role of FOC. So also, with governments, who are not logical member of the FOC, we always explain what the agenda is of the FOC. Why is the FOC there. What are we doing and why is it important? Topic on agenda. You mentioned internet shutdowns. I can assure you I've been discussing it with many countries who use this tool as politically. And it's inside rooms, you can have more open discussions than if you did only online with statements, et cetera. Also important to have inside rooms closed door sessions and why are you using this these tools? Can't you do it, avoid this? Harm also a lot of civil service harm of role journalists which are crucial. Several service. One topics I messages bringing up why is the FOC there? FOC is already since 2011, so it's known by many governments. But also, new colleagues and new people working the governments. We also stress it's important of role of it and also, why it's there. And why it's important to respect human rights online. As it is important to do it off line.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Thank you. Ambassador, out did you want to come in as well?

>> MAARIA ADEBAHR: Thank you so much. I can only underline what Ernst just said. It's important and we do our work and spreading the word and have those discussions formally but also informally, for settling politely diplomatically other times. Other times straightforward forcefully is the way to go. Is it very important form of doing that. Reference point for everybody. Thank you.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Thank you ambassador. Maybe Dr. Erica Moret, sorry. Please.

>> DIVINE SELASE AGBETI: As much as we advocate for FOC members to ensure human rights online especially when it comes to A.I., I think FOC should also be promoting responsible use of citizen.

>> online first. I mean, short period of working on this cybersecurity authority, I have seen how citizens have used A.I. to manipulaten line content ‑‑ online content to lie against government to even create cryptocurrency pages in the name of the President, et cetera, so it is works both ways. I think FOC should be advocating for responsible use of citizens. And same time, when this has been advocated, then FOC can engage with governments also to ensure that citizens actually have the right to use this systems and use it freely without the fear of arrest or fear of intimidation. Thank you.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Thank you. Dr. Erica Moret? Hard to build on excellent points.

>> ERICA MORET: I just to add I phenomena you extra points on what has already been said. Few extra points from the private sector perspective and Microsoft viewpoint, take printed and proactive approach to particular question including due diligence before entering high risk markets guided by UN guiding principles. Limit service facial recognition misuse is likely. Resist public data request and published transparency reports misuse is likely hold ourselves cannable. Offer tools like account guard to protect civil society journalists human rights defenders from cyber threat it's and global for responsible A.I. and digital use including through very important process like the Global Digital Compact and FRA such at IGF and WSIS. just to say really like to highlight here it's really important developments that have been going on in terms of A.I. data‑driven tools to protect against human rights abuses. Under authoritarian regimes and many tech companies working proactively with the human rights community with this and we personally are very actively engaged with office high commissioner human rights, across numerous different projects in terms monitoring and rights abuses and monitor and detect risks and also areas like capacity‑building and A.I. training in order to properly homerun he is tools and harness tools come up with new solutions where needs are identified.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Great answers.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Thank you great answer tough question and really never ending battle to prevent abuses or misuse of A.I. systems. Arer couple questions on from our colleagues joining us online. The first is what have any global frameworks with binding obligations on states for the responsible use and governance of A.I.

Ed second question, is how can transparency and A.I. decision‑making be improved without supposing sensitive data? Exposing) particularly to ensure that the right to privacy protected under international human rights law is indeed protected. Would think of the panelists like to jump in on either of those two questions? We have about five minutes left. Please Dr. Erica Moret.

>> ERICA MORET: Talk Bo DDP global digital Kamehameha out pact for the future. UN general assembly. Piers time every member state in the world agree on A.I. governance. Incredibly important. Two new bodies being developed right now dialogue and digital compact panel. Microsoft been engaged every step of the process sitting at the table. Grateful to have a voice there. More private sector but also Civil Society particularly those without the usual access to these type of process SS incredibly vital but not just to have seat at the table but actual have a voice at the table. So the more we can find inclusive fair, transparent participatory ways those particularly in the global majority have meaningful way of engaging in these very, very important developments, through this multistakeholder model is encouraged in my view. Thanks.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Anyone else?

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Anybody else?

>> ERNST NOORMAN: First to Maria.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Apologies.

>> VINICIUS W. O. SANTOS:

>> MAARIA ADEBAHR: I would use this opportunity to again, put your attention to the council of framework convention on A.I because really, this is something hardly negotiated. It's global. And highly negotiated. Drive for more member states to join. And it's open for all. Globally open convention. Don't have to be member of the council of Europe. So please have a look or tell your state representatives respectively to have a look and you can always approach I think any of EU member states tier for more information.

The second internationally binding or hopefully really to be implemented thing is the global digital compact. Already mentioned important I think because head counts in our head council we came to the ‑‑ head count item, you came to the conclusion only truly global form to discuss A.I. And if we wouldn't do it there, then about more than hundred states world wide would not be present at any important table to discuss A.I. governance. Because in those states are probably not members of the G7, G20, Unesco, OECC and or not able in terms of enabling resource to join those discussion. Make the Global Digital Compact more important and EU A.I. has by its nature, aspects of A.I. governance, and principles adherent so this would be the third framework I would like to mention here. Thank you.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Ambassador.

>> ERNST NOORMAN: Add few minute points. A.I. is have Brussels effect. Happening with the GDPR we agreed on GDPR and implemented that you saw, a lot of other countries started copying the similar legislation, also in the US, saw number of states and notably, California would also document similar legislation as GDPR that was very important effect and I quite hopeful that EU, AI Act will have similar effect.

Maria mentioned already, council of Europe A.I. framework convention. If we would strive for binding framework within the whole UN going to be very difficult. But if you see this more St. Pauler coalition, smaller coalitions Budapest convention cybercrime we have seen just during the negotiations on the UN cybercrime treaty that more and more members from other regions decided to join actually Budapest convention from the Pacific, from Africa, other regions, decided well, we want to be part of Budapest convention very effective, very concrete corporation on this topic ‑‑ cooperation j I think that is also good example how we can work in more smaller coalition to ensure with oils spill effect to concur the world with good strong legislation for other countries.

>> DIVINE SELASE AGBETI: Thank you. Excellent points about made by everyone here so far on this. And will just like to add PAR more process, that it multi‑stakeholders responsible use of this imagined technologies including artifical intelligence, and requires members, so we encourage members, other states to sign up as well. To it and also member states to implement the convention so that we can all encourage responsible use of this technologies. These technologies thank you.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Thank you I think is really excellent point to end on. There are some very important, very significant binding governance mechanisms like the convention on A.I. from the council of Europe. And that really can mimic the Budapest convention which has become the leading authority for combating and preventeding cybercrimes. By the of call to action from civil society. Let us, FOC, member states and FOC advisory network help you inform your governance on these process processing let us helm you advocate for them to adopt, sign and enact them. Processes j been fantastic panel so far. Clothing remarks from you.

>> ERNST NOORMAN: Thank you very much. Zach for moderating this panel. First of all, statement is online right now. So go to website freedom online coalition, and just copy the statement, put it on social media spread the word. So that is already important.

I would like to thank. Involved drafting statement. Both from members freedom online coalition as advisory network, played extremely important meaningful role in strengthening the statement and we had in‑person meetings, one was first ones in the civil rights conference in February this year and a rights number of online coalitions. A lot of work has been put in drafting and strengthening statement.

So really like to thank countries who have decided to sign language on on the statement. I'm confident that many more will follow in the days and weeks to come.

Finally I really would like to thank on behalf of a think of Maria, and her team, and Zach and your team, and my team from the Netherlands, to thank all of you first of all to be presents and those who being involved in drafting statement for your dedication, your work and your shared purpose on this important topic. Thank you very much.

>> ZACH LAMPELL: Thank you.

[applause]

Shaping the Future with Multistakeholder Foresight.

¶¶

¶¶

Shaping the Future with Multistakeholder Foresight.

¶¶

>> PHILIPP SCHULTE: Good morning good afternoon. Welcome to open forum shaping future of multi‑stakeholder foresight. My name is Philipp Schulte Senior Policy Officer central ministry digital modernization and state monitoring in Germany. I am happy to see all you of you here on sign site and online. On the panel. On our online line panel. On on site briefly explain what the session is about, online moderator with us and you can ask questions. Here on site and on line. After first round. Of questions. And are you very welcome to ask questions and I will also give you a lot of time for that. Since I know some of the people here in the room have been involved in this exercise. I'm happy to discuss with you.

So what is session about? This session about project of the our ministry called strategic foresight. Some of you might know that Germany has published last year first strategy for international policy ever, and the measures about this. Several mesh measure about this. Fund for IGF secretary we all welcome. But there was also fellowship fund for international digital policy for young fellows which are also around here the IGF. And process for foresight dive into on this panel. And for that, I'm very much excited to have you here on stage and online. We have here Anriette Esterhuysen. I'm senior advisor for global regional internet governance with the association for progressive communications. And former Mac chair and around IGF. Since ever I don't know. Yes? So and next says executive director initiative and IGF MAC leadership panel member. And also. Gbenga Sesan not new the ecosystem hire I can say. Online we have poles colleague burn and social center for reasonable research group digital and coauthor future discussing here and intergovernment governance and in that role been a task force lead and develop the scenarios we will discuss here online. And Julia Pohre, hope you can hear us.

Result without further ado I will give the panelist starting with Julia online, you have been task force in this experiment on strategic foresight on with ministry and our ministry maybe you can explain to the audience which might not really be aware of this project, or maybe doesn't know what strategic foresight is really is, what was your role, what did you do with the task force members, maybe you can say also a word, would was was and the task force and what as the outcome.

>>JULIE POHRE: Thank you. Thank you very much so sorry that I cannot be with you at the IGF. But it's my son's birthday tomorrow and I wouldn't miss this not even for the IGF. I'm sorry.

I'm happy to join online. And I'll be happy to say a few words about the process and methodology involved. Not so much about the scenarios. Discuss them later not familiar with strategic foresights make a few points what strategic foresights is about and explain them example of task force. What we did. Important to keep in mind when speak about strategic foresight field of intergovernment governance elsewhere that strategic foresight is not about prodigitting exact future something we all struggle with in this process. It's really strategic foresight help us deal uncertainties exploring possible futures. So it's more about thinking how we can prepare ourself for different scenarios rather than trying to guess what will actually happen. In the future. By using strategic foresight I think that is motivational of the Germany ministry to kind of launch this process kind of decision maker it's and stakeholder better uncertainties in the world and which direction they might develop and prepare for disruptions P of them actually happen. Before they actually happen. Second point first one is not about predicting future. Second one is about developing future scenarios. Developing scenarios stories of plausible futures. That means future it's that we develop in these scenarios don't have to be realistic it's very likely that none of these stories that we develop will ever happen in that way. But they need to be plausible. In some way they could happen if certain kind of circumstances come together.

So these kind of stories developed, these scenarios we developed to highlight in different ways how the future might unfold and help us understand actions go in one direction or the other.

In the project we're discussing here, with called strategy foresight intergovernment governance 2014, by the Germany ministry for digitization and transport. Changed the name. Four distinct scenarios, for intergovernment governance in the 15 years. Next 15 euros. These four scenarios kind of plausible stories in which we could explore a range of possible futures. Which he went from. Contribution of transit digital today, growth and economic geopolitical competition and where this lead it's second one was more complete and total systemic collapse and fragmentation of the internet in two distinct networks. Third one was regulation of the digital world to degree that everything becomes controlled in some way. And fourth one was about complete transformation of the intergovernment governance structures that we have today.

Turn away from economic competitive logic toward kind of shared commitment and promoting public good. All of these four scenarios are possible future an none of them happened help us understand what we can see as trend it's and how we can deal with these trend. Important to keep in mind these scenarios not exclusive of the of other. Parts of them could coexist, could happen, part of one and part of other scenario. Help us discuss when is desirable and what risks and we want to avoid and kind of see opportunity and we want to go. For this very reason, I think strategic foresight has been a methodology used by international organizations also including a lot of UN agencies and by the European Commission, a lot by civil society organizations since early 2,000. Inform decisions and as inform policies and inform actions, tell us more about that and because they probably have used foresights in the past too.

Brings me to my third point speaking by civil society and other actors. Third part, first one is not about the predigging future. Second one is about writing possible future stories you. And third one is to do this in a positive participatory way. We followed various structured method, but we reached the method through focused discussion with expert and stakeholder different grounds came together, inside Abilities discussed different insights different options percent perspectives where we might go in the future intergovernment governance. Explain meant completely through the process. Guide you what we used to develop scenarios for the German administrative digital session. Process mandated by the ministry coordinated by the German agency for international corporation. And they also provided method expert really kind of had he helped through the process, task force members guided us methodology through the discussion and how we developed scenario.

For the task force 50 members. Invited, selected to represent. Kind of diverse community that we have in Germany intergovernment governance, academia, business, civil society and technical community and the goal was to develop these kind of for different scenarios for the next 15 years. Basically, what will had happen in the next 15 years in intergovernment governance. I was kind of the content lead. Also meant that I helped drafting scenarios but it was really joint process between all of different members of task force.

Task force members contributed every stage of this scenario creation and collecteded influential factors. Discussed what the impact of factors may be based on the methodology drafted, these four possible futures and also, next critically assessed the possibility and constantly refined the writing of these scenarios. Important because all members of this task force were from Germany, represented different stakeholder groups, kind of Germany or European centralized key we had in the task force, what we did conducted interviews specialist from various world regions stakeholder groups to kind of validate this will scenarios, bring in new ideas and bring in more global and diverse perspective. They were interviewed by me for this another process. So that is also how very involved in this.

Finally, what we did after we had good draft of this scenarios and they were validated, we had network kind of workshop in which the different members of the task force but also additional participants kind of discussed and also used certain method to kind of develop ideas, how these scenarios, what they mean for their own kind of actions and own planning. And as far as I know scenarios are being used by the ministry to discuss potential option in the action in the field of intergovernment governance. I leave it at that.

>> PHILIPP SCHULTE: Thank you. Was really helpful for us on stage in the audience to better understand what you did and what the German government together what stakeholders proposed. So one important point that my panelists here on stage interslew viewed for these scenarios. Interviewed. Turn to you. We had how was it for you to be interviewed in this project, was that something familiar to you, was it completely new? What was your experience during the interview what were you thinking but when reading, become maybe later to that. The scenarios and yeah. What was your impression?

>> GBENGA:  I have used this methodology long time ago. I have used in South Africa late 1990s. After labor liberation first democratic government was in place it was used in the context planning for development an compulsion and parties difficult governance. I found it moniesly frustrated wasn't productive participant, I found the abstraction very frustrating you knew much younger I thought I knew exactly what which need to do what the problems are and approaching it in kind of round about way seemed to me, it was the facilitator was from the US. Which frustrated me even more. And I really did not find it very had helpful. I'm much wiser. Julia, very good interview. Been around intergovernment governance for a long time, I think we have become very what'sed word? Quite boring as maybe the best word. But more sophisticated words. I don't think we're being creative or innovative enough. I don't think we a are applying critical thinking enough how we were evolving intergovernment governance. So actually, found it very exciting and very interesting. Enjoyed the process. Abstraction little issue. Talk about it more later I found it really, sort of stream of consciousness approach, but guided by Julia to focus on the plausible but also, not trying to think of what will actually happen. And in playing with those trajectories with the knowledge of the world that we are living in and working in,.

So I found it very useful. Very impressed actually Germany had done this and I think my only sort of one, I would liked to be part of a focus group or group at some point you I would have found it more interesting in some ways to have a group dynamic I think my only other question about it as well is way in which you treat multi‑stakeholder in how you are approaching the future of intergovernment governance, I think this in that sense, study perhaps not impact or deconstruct what multi‑stakeholder, I would have actually possibly found it more valuable if it was scenarios of of governance effective accountable, whatever, governance. Some I felt the focus on multi‑stakeholder became a little bit one‑dimensional. Civil society, business, government, technical, which I think is actually one of the weakness in our entire ecosystem.

It wasn't my first but talking to Julia was also very, very interesting. I do interviews a lot. Either from research interviews, where people are hoping, that you are supporting thesis or to media interviews, people are hoping they can pigeonhole you into position. This was very helpful that there was no, target outcome. You could think and I think it was very helpful to think on your feet. On your seat, think while are you having the conversation. I done this 2007. While ago, as part of the Desmond Tutu leadership, trying to create scenarios for the future of Africa interesting process because for us at the time, it was like a compromise. People felt things are going to go this way and felt things are going to go to the other way. Optic mitts, pessimist and small group in between. Doing future as possible futures was sort of compromise like everybody felt leader heard and saw the future in those. Felt heard) what I also found interesting in those these, good that was government, typically, you would have this kind of project by civil society, thinking of the future, but if was fad to know it good to know it was a good afternoon one things I very Keon on implementation. Whatever KEENj asked continue to implement look at the scenarios and adjustment one of the beautiful things about possible futures is that it won't happen exactly same way but when something happens close to the scenario, that you sort of discussed, then you have opportunity to Adeline either align or run away from certain things. glad that is happening to hear. It was fun. For exact destination, no agenda. Better conversation to allow me to think and speak to the issues as I saw them. And what I thought could happen. The other involvement I had with scenario planning I think that Anriette Esterhuysen involved with this, 2008 was Elon University, don't remember the name, talking about predicting the future, I remember one things I said about the future, at that time was we will find confusion between what to contemplate.

Sometime during COVID, sent me an email what you said happening now. now did not predict the pandemic. Just a bit scared that that was going to be something that would happen in the future. I think it was very helpful because when that moment came, I felt prepared because you had thought about it. Beautiful things about creating possible futures.

>> PHILIPP SCHULTE: Thank you so much. Highlighted some our ideas but also some of challenges within the process but also, in the outcomes of which outcomes highlighted some of the challenges of current environment. Current community. I thank you so much for it. Do you want to react directly? Otherwise, key takeaways or defining event can in describing the scenarios, what do you consider to be the defining characteristics of multi‑stakeholder model of intergovernment governance which pointed out, was a by the one‑dimensional, I think that is what you said. And maybe actually, fun that you said that after reading the reports because that is what actually our finding was before starting this process, but so you might have know better basis for discussion. That is at least our hope, but I don't know. Gbenga Sesan, you are heavily thinking about the multi‑stakeholder process and having published about it? What is your opinion?

>> JULIA: Enjoyed for me. We don't usually think about potential futures. We look past and present. So for me, also very interesting kind of exercise three times now. Intergovernment governance before in different context I thought it was very interesting. Really enjoyed the interviews because really broadened my perspective and learned a lot from these interviews.

Kind of a we get to the stage where we really brought scenarios, and looked at them with some distance after a while. I think what strikes me most is that most important factor in almost all scenarios maybe less than last one, about complete transformation, but the first one, the key driving factors is actually the role of states and the role of governments. So in each scenario, kind of actions of states, in particular of important states, US, China, but also, Russia, from the EU kind of action particular states including emerging kind of power relation between state states and government, key defining factor in the defining scenarios. Geopolitics main drivers in transformations in these scenarios. Main drivers of the future and main kind of key factors for the future that we imagined. That is to say we actually started writing them and wrote the scenarios before President Trump took office again and before we kind of saw this geopolitical tensions and economic competition, that followed taking office again.

So I think today, we would have gone further in emphasizing the role of geopolitics and geoeconomics in these scenarios. And kind of written them even more around these kind of tensions. That we see. ‑‑ add geoeconomics above) I would say actual geopolitical developments have already overtaken the scenarios that we written on these six months ago or 8 months ago ‑‑ only six) the reality is actually moving faster than we thought. It would.

It's my assumption that actually 10 years ago, had we written these scenarios 10 years ago we would have given less much less prominent role to states and to governments and into the relationship between states and I'm actually I don't think so, I actually I'm sure we would have given this because I did such suppose foresight process ‑‑ process j2013, '14 and '15, they are the key drivers actually the corporate actors and civil society. So it has changed and I think this is also kind of finding that we see like on how we see the world as well. That actually states and geopolitical and geoeconomic actions do have become more important again.

As multi‑stakeholderism I have share also observation and I think what also some distance looking back at scenarios, what is kind of striking and maybe even frightening that in none of these scenarios, maybe for the last one, so different, bright future for multi‑stakeholderism and intergovernment governance. So I think all of these scenarios, we ended up writing possible futures and multistakeholder process either being hollowed out or kind of completely undermined by corporate actors and state actors. To some degree, basically commitment to multi‑stakeholdersessism and government remains, at least discuss issue level. Wrote scenarios commitment is only lip service or multi‑stakeholder processing are being so institutionalize and professionalized and becoming so predictable, actually lose their meaningness and lose their kind of bottom‑up character intern and possibility to also. Voices that might diverge from the mainstream kind of perspectives, these assess all of these processing all remotely governance out‑lived promisees. Writing them not with that intention into mind, end up seeing the future, give us some reflections on what we are doing to transform our model to make it more meaningful. A lot of nodding here.

>> GBENGA SESAN: How fast politics played out.

Remember our conversation at the time, talked about it, I don't think anyone sort of could predict that things would move this fast by November, people who were doing scenarios I be mean within considerations. We had to do some planning. Part of initiative in November. But there wasn't that sense and I think is this relationship between behind satellite and scenario planning.

>> JYOTI PANDAY: Hindsight and this is why adjusting as you go is critical. So there are studies planned for and dial into level 7 and get to level 9. And you have to tell yourself, listen, we can't, it would be insanity to for you to then take the actions you planned for level 7, when you are at level 9. I would say for multistakeholderism right now, not only is it not living up to some of the lofty definition and branding, it's also been threatened because of that reason, there are people who are then saying yes, we've talked about ideal multi‑stakeholder reason your everyone is equal partner. Not everyone is equal around a table. Hasn't worked. So let's try this or less perfect but pragmatic model. That is itself is a challenge two things for me. One is yes, must adjust but we must also never lose that opportunity to dream of to wish for better scenario. It won't be perfect. We have to just. We have to be realistic we shouldn't move there optimism straight to pessimism. Maintain element of realism and say that some things may not be working now but still possible to get things to become better.

>> PHILIPP SCHULTE:

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Let me comment on what you said emerged about the role of states. Absolutely, that is not surprise to me and in fact, what is surprise to me is that there's still reluctance to talk about enhanced cooperation in the space. We one of the WSIS not things not to be named. Word is not to say. Because reality is that how states engage or not engage with one another has profound impact on how inclusive governance is. How strong civil society can be. How to what extent human rights are respected or democratic institutions are able to grow and play their role.

So much as we like this don't know, fairy tale notion of multistakeholder governance as alternative dimension of perfect governance. I mean I see it as way, way of arriving at more accountable inclusive, effective governance, and states are a big part of that. I think what the multi‑stakeholder approach gives us is a way of really putting on the table that states cannot do this on their own. If they do it on their own, probably not going to do very well. Doesn't mean that states do not states do have quite profound role. Other thing multi‑stakeholder give us, way IGF evolved very diverse ecosystem. Intergovernment governance has many types of decisionmaking processing. Types of development and standards‑making processes, some of them might be led by governments. Some of them can be completely sort of technical community driven. Some might be more sort of civil society driven or private sector driven. What the multistakeholder approach gives us is constant reminder that we need to connect these with one more and that they need to overlap and engage with one another. But it doesn't mean that there's in new sort of amorphous more multistakeholder ideal which has to operate across the board. So I do think it's interesting that the role of states is important and I don't think we should feel that this undermines the ideals we are striving for in the space, which is to have inclusive and participative in governance that achieves good rusults, public interest results.

>> PHILIPP SCHULTE: I couldn't agree more. I mean, to the world of digital internet, state was maybe foreign player long time. And now just, I mean, I share the observations here that state also ministries show up more and more. Show up more to the IGF, but show up more to ICANN. More to the IUTF right now age involved. That might be usually process, since state was reluctant to show up compared to other political areas or field of politics. Can be healing. As you said, it is still important and can play a role in this also triggered by our thinking what our role is or good role for us.

When I think about it, I think responsibility of state is more like, garden of multi‑stakeholdersrds and state is maybe responsibility of state is like to make sure that all flowers all the different stakeholder groups can perform in the role they want to perform and perform best. Maybe this scenarios can help different groups and one idea behind it. Lead it's am to my next question. Report is not P shall Alish yet it will be published many some time. Can go you is work daily work?

>> GBENGA SESAN: Very absolutely. Keen to see was how all the ideas come together to define phenomena what the scenarios will be. At risk of giving more work more work I think you needs to quickly with new realities maybe like an addendum or annex. Something we will do most likely. Pick that report and looks at the scenarios will be able to see scenarios in our current reality. Some of geopolitics. Talked it bet about at the time. Wasn't as deep some experiences we right now. Imagine at least starter for conversations but absolutely. I think this is something that will be useful the no just content of it, but also principle behind it. Not just) the principle of creating possible future and adjusting your strategy as you continue to see what has emerge and how close they are to the possible futures that you predicted.

>> PHILIPP SCHULTE: One key role was role of the state. Another key role is role of technology. And so you worked a lot of connectivity.

( on connect.

>> JOAO MORENO FALCAO: And worked with ‑‑ with connectivity a lot of technical technologies in area. May is your assessment of the role of technology in report and real life and ‑‑ what is your) what can we learn from all the technology implemented introduced for new technologies around where do you see the dangers and opportunities?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: You taking me away from scenarios now an foresight to reality. The present. I think that one of the strengths of the report is that it does allow us to think of technology in both as a force that has actually impact on its own as well as sector that interacts with geoM political conflicts, different different forms of societal change and organization) I think, were also going to ask me at one point so actively involved in trying to build internet connectivity in Africa, eighties, nineties, early 2,000 what our hopes was. Shift from WSIS and WSIS+20. I think it was very much belief Nea each obviously, ‑‑ naive) access to technology in particular access to communication technology will be equalizer. That it will be equalizer between rich and poor, center and periphery men, woman, nonbinary, that individuals that it would be this set of tools and the processing that creates engagement and cooperation.

Of course, it didn't quite pan out that way but this that is still part of what technology gives us. So I think I mean, hard part about foresight also interesting part is to look at how this complex way in which individual and societies engage with technology and are changed by technology. How that will play out in different scenarios.

Maybe this is also one of the reasons why the role of states emerged as important. Face the one predictability I guess tendency to look at, who are the institutions in this context of unpredictability and insecurity. That have to the capacity and responsibility to make sure things don't go wrong. I guess that is also naive because we also know that both corporations and states are unpredictable themselves not giving you good answer here because I think that it is, so I'm going to actually answer the question you asked Gbenga, is this useful in my work? Not particularly. Is the report useful? I'm not sure the report will be useful. I think exercise is enormously useful. Participatory process very valuable to the people part of it. Make the report useful EU find a way using it, context people are able to discuss and think about it and engage those scenarios. Could be useful. Think creatively. This year for those of you don't know, probably all heard so much about the world summit, on information society, by the way, action line on enabling environment that is what governments are supposed to do of create enabling environment. But when the WSIS was reviewed, by commission on science for technology, UN part body part of eco, short a lot of the US government shortly after taken a position on not wanting to support the sustainable development goals. Or use the concepts of develop developments in and sustainability. It was also shortly after the US had pronounced that gender is buy lock biological and just two sexes. These featured in the negotiations around the WSIS where people were talking about have we got digital inclusion, is there security, are we achieving development goals. He'll I was there as civil society participant and to see the Europeans states in particular Shell shocked it was so difficult for them to operate in this context when a long‑time partner in the intergovernment governance and world summit process, US moving outside or taking on different position. My first thought during that entire week was I wish these governments had all done some foresight work. Maybe this if they had, actually be able to take advantage. Shift. Be creative. Form new alliances. And I think that is why I think certainly for diplomats I think certainly for governments, anyone who is involved in negotiation in a geopolitical, or even multi‑stakeholder context very useful technique to use.

>> PHILIPP SCHULTE: Gave us a lot homework here. Speaking about time. We still have some time. Happy to take questions from the audience. If you have prepared already a question, please line up here. We have the mic here. Otherwise, also able to take online questions. We are more than happy to you are in the discussion.

Happy if you are) pick up another point you said. I mean, level of abstract, we have already. Please introduce yourself and.

>> Good morning. Professor better Roberta Haar leading on a panel no day zero with my also heading horizon project. Remit research. Earn. Could you to look at it. Remight part of what we're doing to develop ‑‑ remit) scenario testing workshop also developed gains and developed them with the joint research center EU commission. Also have this scenario expiration sets them shake your head I guess you're aware of it ‑‑ system takerren their system and used data from our research and developed scenario games. Also played now, first one which he had on.

Military A.I. at Erasmus University noter Damay. Extremely good results. We took the data and brought to people are it play and discuss and four scenarios developing with different data. Still have four workshops to go. One in Rome in April hell singe I in September. April next year. And then also have summit in Brussels is a she's on our supervisory board. Pointed out for me to come today. Anriette Esterhuysen shaking her head j first request report accessible and will you answered that question. Then my next one is can we sort of also adapt your data and maybe also have some collaborative and taking your data on in the text step and game, we can integrate it and then indeed have policy ideas to invited policy stakeholders to our games and play T I'm hoping that I've noted all your details out. Went right to Julia. And hoping that we can maybe have some collaborative work there. Is that something that can you find interesting? So thank you.

>> PHILIPP SCHULTE: I guess I have to take the question. Report yes. True. Not published yet. As you might know, we are governmental transition period in Germany. Set up new ministry. This new ministry will also be responsible for strategic foresight. Lucky coincident in this case. We are really optimistic proceed at some level with the report and also with the methodology for sure and our work. We have done. However, one idea mind behind is report not only for the government for all stakeholder happy to reach out involved in the project. Some civil society organization in Germany, for example, wiki media already taking work and trying to work with it. Through report and with the methodology. Happen to connect you. Julia I know about the agreement project that was I went to one of your conference last year. Discussing multi‑lateralism, multistakeholderism I have been happy to also be involved. I think we have to ministry to confirm since they probably have some kind of control over the material we produce. I think it will be very helpful to take this further and develop it into a game. Fun, kind of connects to what I wanted to say about stakeholder inengagement, come to later challenge to keep people involved in these kind of exercises making it into bring to another format, could be very helpful learning process for us all how can we do this differently as well to maybe make it more fun for everybody involved and make it more meaningful for the output take the output to that can be something that be used).

>> Good morning. Bertrand, executive director of National Policy Network. One, first of all, congratulations to the German government for having undertaken this thing. I think it's the perfect place and venue for discussions and mental level how institutions are doing. Tool of scenario foresight is definitely good one. I am extremely frustrated that you cannot present this because it would have been a perfect session to build the session around this. Waiting impatiently for the release of the scenarios of the foresight report about these kind of exercises and extremely important, we know the limitations of those things. You know the benefit of engaging the people. It's mostly process developing those things. That is most interesting. Allows people to express what they see as the trend, what they see as the drivers pro or negatively. However, there are things that always extremely difficult to anticipate in those environments. Call them the black swan or the unexpected events, for those of us old enough we can remember that when the Worldwide Web emerged, everybody was talking about America on Line. Domination of America on Line. And how the future of electronic communications was going to be those bandwidth companies or telecos. And then, something happened. On the side. I want to keep faith in the fact that multistakeholder spirit not the model because there's no such thing as a multistakeholder model. But the multistakeholder spirit not only will be alive but it will ultimately permeate everything because the reality is today, because of those geopolitical tensions, we are seeing more than ever that the governments together cannot solve those problems.

I want to highlight and I've said that in other session, in 20 years, since the WSIS, there hasn't been one single agreement among all governments on digital issues except cybercrime convention sponsored by one of the countries that is the most present behind cybercrime. That is the ultimate irony of the limits of the multilateral system which has to be preserved. Don't get met me wrong. States are fundamental. Our inability so far to bring the actor different actors around the table in environments like the IGF and other venues, is one of the reasons why we struggling to address those problems.

At this juncture, this it exercise about scenarios we need to also think little bit more about what we want, not only what the trends are. And to finish, WSIS+20 process at the moment is entirely focused on producing another resolution in December. One thing it should say and state set the stage for, which is what is going to be the future of IGF? When do we discuss 2026 and where resolution of the mandate and evolution of the structure of the IGF, discussing scenarios, thinking about the institutional arrangingments is core follow‑up I think for what you've been trying to achieve. 

>> PHILIPP SCHULTE: Couldn't track your question. Comments? Anyone wants to react?

>> GBENGA SESAN: Thanks a lot for that. On the line one, keep in mind what we want that is something I was speaking to earlier. When I said there is reality, there is history, there is data. But there is also desire that we have and we may be faced with challenge it's but we need to come to the table with ideal scenario that we want. What do we we want? Challenge is if you're frustrated by history, historical data, frustrated by some scenarios that paints bleak future. There is no point. We might as well just throw up our hands and say, let's sit down and watch the TV. If there something we want, I mean, what this brings to mind for me is if you are running or sailing or flying against the wind. You could either submit to the direction of the wind, which then means you will go anywhere the wind takes you or you could drive against the wind. My mathematics comes in play here, think of the velocity it use, think the direct angle of inclination, so that worst‑case scenario, you will not be pushed away and you will end up where you want to go. I think it's really important. We know what we want. And knowing what we want has to come from everyone on the table. It cannot be what the government wants. It cannot be what only one stakeholder wants.

We come up with what we want. Have conversations some cases have consensus. We will come together and agree on some injunction things absolutely important for want of other phrase. To keep dreaming. 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I've known him since he was very young. Sometimes he makes me feel very old. Sometimes not. Today you make me feel very old. Not been dreaming of concrete things. What is WSIS all about. People‑centered development, human‑right‑oriented information society. Use technology improve their lives to me more important than having IGF frankly, but I believe we need the IGF to get there. And I do agree that we have to renew the IGF. Interesting point about the foresight exercise. I think all of those scenarios, as Julia said, they will all depicted fairly not such a positive picture of multistakeholder, which I think where should interpret as a real indicator that we need IGF. We need forums like the IGF. For me, it's an important thing is that it is IGF which allows wind in. Doesn't close all the windows. So that we can sit in our sort of safe comfortable multistakeholder space because I think the reality is we don't all want the same thing and I think that we not always going to have consensus. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be in active open conversation with one another.

So for me, IGF, that actually allows us to tackle the big issues of geopolitical conflict. Of the dominance of big tech companies which are denouncing international law and in fact, sometimes have the support of some states that denounce international law. The fact in this authoritarian, war, conflict, poverty and technology is becoming active plays a very active role in all of this. I think we need at the IGF. Need to be brave and courageous enough to actually tackle those with the assumption that we're not necessarily going to agree but at least when we need to have. Where the multi‑stakeholder is valuable. Have conversations come from different perspectives and different beliefs to talk to one another.

>> PHILIPP SCHULTE: My impression that picking like starting from your comments. Better knowing what we don't want instead of knowing what we want. So my question is, how do we get, how do we know what you want? Like is this project or do you think about other projects or what would be now, natural follow‑ups steps to better know what we want and to implement it? Maybe you can start here. Julia can start here. How would you take to continue the work what you think there's a better option, better. Process?

>> *JULIA: interesting question. First, possible, maybe in retrospect looking back and what we did I think concern that I had. I had different a role because I was kind of leader of the task force all stips writing scenarios, kept engaged a lot of the task force members over time. All very busy and have kind of limit the time and limited resources and we have to kind of belief in a process in order to kind of be part of that process. And I think what would be really helpful is to do this kind of process or even take what we did now and move forward and see how why this matters to members wrote the report and kind of show them the kind of clear benefits and I think one of the ideas on how to make this more meaningful to actually see what now for example, the Germany government, mandated this process with doing whatever ideas we develop and how these ideas kind of helped within the ministry, within the government to gather what they want, as we said, or figure out what they don't want how it impacting whatever the government should be doing or not to be doing.

Opaque part for us and meant at criticism on our task force itself because we had difficult kind of pictureing where we were going. Not meant as criticism. Process itself because I also know that how it was organized. Government change in between and whatever. Funding was meant to engage stockholders with open each other. Help from the ministry in the task force when you do it. Take to to the next step.

Interesting to actually have people talking to each other about where this lead us an where would we want to two. Help the task force member better understand what contributions and are leading to and have government who is mandating this process mandating process better understand where the ideas are coming from, what kind of compute Cameron Richman behind t computing perspectives or compactible perspectives. Take this forward or make it better in the next round. 

>> PHILIPP SCHULTE: Valid points and good to hear that. Because we were by the reluctant to be on this task force because we don't want to have a government process writing our scenarios by stakeholder use them as lip service. To well wanted not really to get into the scenarios I mean, and I agree that was a lot of work and this was also reason why stakeholder group was mainly people from Germany or Europe because otherwise, would be even more like harder to bring them all together to Berlin like two or three times work on the scenarios, so there were some restrictions, as I said, and but our hope is that with the new government, an with the new responsibility, ministry, that we can learn from this process and take it to the next level.

Coming back to this original question about like implementation and alternatives. 

>>GBENGA SESAN: Back to this word, want.

Of course, I agree with you on starting a times from what he we don't know, what we don't want, in fact, in itself knowing what you don't want is knowing what you want. I want not to have what I don't want. We had conversation on leadership panel August 2022, we had a lot of conversations and it almost always ended when we don't want this, we don't want that.

Many of you I hope, have seen the internet we want paper, panel put out. That was the idea behind it. We have to at some point define certain things. Certain things we are. We don't all agree on everything. Things people will not feel too strongly against and we could start with that. Internet, one paper talks about certain things that show some people read and say, hey, rights online. Maybe we don't want that, but at least it is out there and something a certain stakeholder and majority of people desire to have.

I think it's absolutely important. Yes optimism yes dreaming, but also, putting down in clear themes what we want because at times, when you go into situations and you see reality, you can then say this is the reality, what I want, and ask your action, is then created a pathway between where you are at and where you want to be.

If I want to face reality, I definitely will resign from my job right now. I mean, I work on a continent to talk about digital right and inclusion wherever other conversation I have with governments in the region is about calm down or explaining way Dalai Lama down study have. Helps this is desired destination. It helps with where we're at. Tough work we have to do from point A, which is where we're at, to point B. Where we would like to be. I think that sometimes we say what we want and particularly whether we try and say it multi‑stakeholder sounds like water down set of wedding vows or whatever. I can't think of a good analogy. I want fair tax payment by big tech companies. Need revenue, can build fiberoptic backbone, to feasible reasonable internet institutions for resources in the country to reasonable resources data flow is not based on extractive colonial type model.

Want competition between the private sector, and I want local private sector operators in developing countries. Lots of things I want that I think will create enabling open end inclusive internet, but it's almost up possible to say those name, image, likeness in the context of so many multistakeholder fora. You don't want to offend the private sector. Don't want to offend government, shut down the internet. You don't want to talk about the great firewall of this or that country.

I think we have to able to willing to use this sort of multi‑stakeholder modality with a little bit more courage and openness and honesty. Then I think it will help us get there. But I do have a concrete suggestion for the IGF. I think this methodology is so powerful. I think one of the things that makes multi‑stakeholder fora IGF as its evolved made it maybe also more difficult is much more how about not about individuals but about institutions. I mean, if Philip came to IGF 15 years ago, might have just been there as an individual rather than representative of the German government. Pros and cons both ways.

If we can maybe collaborate, yourselves collaborate with Roberta and her team, come up with a game next IGF, play, not like rooms like this where we sit here and talk and you sit there and listen, engage with one another in an interactive way. Everyone participates, thinking about facilities or a site and change. No reason you can't do that. Room of 500. Methods allows that. Redesign the IGF. Braver IGF. Participatory, creative methodologies we use for sessions, braver IGF. Ask difficult questions. Not going to be consensus.

>> PHILIPP SCHULTE: Absolutely. Really good proposal to have. Not only workshop, lightning talks and games. Might be really good new session format for the next IGF.

Any other questions in the audience or online? Happy to take them now. Invite my panelists for final remarks. Partly have answered them already, but you might summarize it and make it by the more precise. Write that down.

You have articulated WSIS for the IGF. Might also participate wishes for the Germany government or others governments know would get funding for another process, what are your three main wishes, what should be outcome and which is important?

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Why don't we have Julia start. 

>> PHILIPP SCHULTE: As you want.

>> JULIA POHLE: Tough question. Should be Germany government doing this. What I would like to/this kind of exercise on maybe maybe we have to be by the more courageous tackling he elephants in the room. One thing I would like to see for exercise practices big technology comes in creating digital barrier and close ecosystem, a lot of of talk recently about potential fragmentation of digital space due to government and government regulation and digital sovereignty and a lot of fear related to this. Much of it coming out of particular idea that we need certain kind of digital space. Even free from governments. Had this discussion right now. I would like to see attention being paid to how the dominant business models of our current platform economy, fragment online space and lead it other phenomena just mentioned I think that would be one of the issues that should be tackled. Whether the German government is in position to this, I don't know. Maybe we have to be courageous.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Support what Julia said. Because of the roles states emerged so important in the exercise, maybe some activity to look at the role of states but in a more creative way. Not just look at digital service digital market. Often, I feel government feel in the toolbox, basically repression and regulation.

In fact, governments have a huge toolbox that they can use. They can do so many good and engaging and exactly, Philip said saying, this kind of thing much the but maybe to use this in the IGF context perhaps, to work with other governments, about what is it really that governments can do to help us to enable this what the multistakeholder ideal represents, which is inclusion, accountability creativity. Instead governments being silent partner or sometimes problematic partner in the multi‑stakeholder journey to really enabling partner. That would be something exciting to do. Other remarks already made.

>> GBENGA SESAN: In the spirit of dreaming what I want, I permanent mandate for IGF, has review mechanisms built in it. I want IGF where we can have conversations to don't pretend to hide behind diplomacy for conversation about everything. Getting frustrating for clear elephant in the room and tiptoe around the elephants in the name of diplomacy or something else. Should have difficult conversations because ideally, we want what is best as a final scenario. And one very key thing for me, if there is something IGF has done, it is that has thrown off the value of national and regional initiatives that are mostly self‑run and don't have as much support as possible. Great to see a lot more engagement within our eyes in spaces where governments are still sort of standing by and watching them do what they do.

>> PHILIPP SCHULTE: Thank you. I know all points known and especially on the last point, we are doing a lot of things right now in Germany to bring together, a lot of people from IGF Germany has been involved also in the stakeholder group. So only thing I have to say is thank you for being here. For sharing your expertise and but also, impression and your criticism that is more than welcome and I hope we can present the report soon and yeah, work together with the reports or with other methodologies and think about the issues we are concerned for in the new and refreshing way. Thank you.

[applause]