Future-proofing global tech governance: a bottom-up approach | IGF 2023 Open Forum #44

Report

The convergence of technologies has become a cause for concern as it raises ethical and privacy issues. The development of human brain interfaces is particularly problematic as it intrudes on the privacy of our minds. This invasion into individuals’ innermost thoughts and feelings is seen as a major problem, raising questions about personal autonomy and the protection of mental privacy.

Additionally, there is a growing recognition of the importance of defining our future world.

As technology continues to advance rapidly, it is crucial to establish clear guidelines and regulations to ensure its safe and ethical use. This includes operationalizing our current ethical principles in new and unfamiliar situations that arise with technological advancements. By applying our existing ethical frameworks to emerging technologies, we can address the ethical challenges they present and ensure they align with our values and principles.

Furthermore, it is argued that considering case-by-case scenarios is necessary when making decisions about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and other advanced technologies.

While general principles and guidelines guide our ethical considerations, it is important to take into account the specific context and circumstances surrounding each situation. This approach enables us to address the unique ethical dilemmas that may arise and make more nuanced and informed decisions.

Moreover, valuing cultural understanding and emotional connections is emphasized as a means to reduce inequalities and foster positive interpersonal relations.

Recognizing the diversity of cultures and perspectives in our global society can help bridge gaps and promote empathy and understanding among individuals from different backgrounds. Striving for understanding beyond a rational level, including emotional understanding, is seen as crucial for building inclusive and harmonious societies.

In conclusion, the convergence of technologies presents complex ethical challenges that necessitate attention.

Defining our future world, operationalizing our principles, considering case-by-case scenarios, and valuing cultural understanding and emotional connections are key aspects that stakeholders should address. By doing so, they can navigate the ethical landscape in a way that promotes fairness, inclusivity, and respect for individual privacy.

Report

The analysis considered various perspectives on technological development and governance. The speakers emphasised the need to maintain openness in both processes, drawing parallels with the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which has nearly 20 years of experience in dealing with open technology.

They highlighted that the IGF’s bottom-up approach plays a vital role in achieving openness.

The growing influence of the private sector in shaping technological developments was recognised as an important aspect. The speakers noted that many new technological advancements are being driven and progressed by private companies.

This recognition indicates the need to understand the limits and the actors shaping technology ecosystems.

There was concern that new technologies are being developed behind closed doors, deviating from the open nature of the Internet’s original development.

The speakers argued that such closed development is less open by nature. This observation raises questions about transparency and inclusivity in the creation of new technologies.

The speakers universally agreed that technology is not neutral and is influenced by societal values.

This recognition signals the importance of considering the ethical and social implications of technological advancements. The broader impact on society must be a critical consideration in technological development and decision-making.

The adequacy of existing institutions in the face of challenges posed by globalisation and technological development was called into question.

One speaker, Carolina Aguirre, expressed scepticism about the sufficiency of the institutions currently in place. The analysis revealed a need for institutions to adapt and keep up with the rapid changes brought about by technological progress.

Furthermore, the analysis highlighted the decline of globalisation in terms of trade and international dialogue.

This observation suggests that traditional processes concerning internationalisation are struggling to keep pace with technological advancements.

In conclusion, the analysis presented a multi-faceted view on technological development and governance. The speakers stressed the importance of openness, raised concerns about closed development, highlighted the influence of the private sector, and acknowledged the influence of societal values on technology.

Additionally, the analysis pointed out the challenges faced by existing institutions and the decline of globalisation. These insights shed light on the need for continuous evaluation and adaptation in the realms of technology and governance.

Report

Cedric Sabbah, an expert in international governance, identifies the challenges posed by the rapid development of technology and its frequent disruption for global governance. He observes that periodically, a new technology becomes a major concern for the international community. These concerns have evolved from critical infrastructure to IoT, ransomware, and internet governance.

Emerging issues, such as jurisdictions, content moderation, and encryption, have also come to the forefront.

Sabbah highlights the ever-changing nature of the global tech industry, emphasizing that international organizations cannot afford to be complacent. He suggests that an agile and bottom-up approach could assist in addressing the governance challenges posed by technology.

Sabbah believes that as technology constantly evolves, policies need to be regularly revisited and updated. Incorporating domestic bottom-up principles into international governance may bring value in tackling these challenges.

Furthermore, Sabbah emphasizes the importance of future-proof and flexible global tech governance.

He proposes an approach that can adapt to the changing technological landscape while maintaining long-lasting effectiveness. Sabbah also recognizes the potential of multi-stakeholder processes and bottom-up approaches in enhancing the quality of global governance mechanisms. He advocates for involving non-traditional stakeholders in discussions and encourages the development of rules by specialized networks.

However, the existence of numerous international bodies and initiatives addressing similar topics raises concerns about fragmentation within these organizations.

This fragmentation includes bodies within the UN as well as external entities like ITU, UNESCO, Human Rights Council, WIPO, OECD, COE, and the EU. It prompts the question of whether fragmentation is advantageous, allowing for diverse efforts, or a disadvantage that diminishes focus and resources.

In conclusion, there is a need to reassess existing concepts and explore new approaches to effectively govern emerging technologies.

Sabbah’s insights underscore the significance of an agile and bottom-up approach, as well as the potential value of multi-stakeholder processes in addressing technology governance challenges. The concern regarding possible fragmentation within international organizations calls for thorough examination and coordination of processes to ensure effective resource allocation.

Overall, global governance mechanisms must adapt and evolve in response to the rapidly changing technology landscape.

Report

Geopolitical discussions should focus on areas of agreement rather than disagreement to foster cooperation and prevent conflicts. This approach aligns with SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. Breaking down large tasks into smaller manageable ones, advocated by engineer Chris Jones, promotes effective problem-solving and resource allocation, in line with SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

A positive stance towards international cooperation and addressing challenges through understanding and managing smaller components is supported, aligning with SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals. Large organizations may need to make changes to become more agile and adapt to emerging technologies, a principle aligned with SDG 9.

Governance discussions should consider both shared values and technical requirements, as highlighted by SDG 16. The process of governance is equally important as the final product, as demonstrated by the UK’s online harms legislation. Multi-stakeholder governance, involving diverse expertise and perspectives, is crucial, echoing SDG 17.

The airline industry’s success in implementing common standards serves as an example of a bottom-up approach aligned with SDG 9. These approaches, emphasizing collaboration, agility, inclusive governance, and bottom-up solutions, contribute to sustainable development, peace, and justice.

Report

Intergovernmental organisations, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), have demonstrated their ability to be agile while maintaining a thorough and evidence-based approach. The OECD’s AI principles were adopted in an impressive one-year time frame, making it the fastest process ever at the organisation.

This highlights the organisation’s ability to adapt to the rapidly evolving landscape of emerging technologies.

To facilitate global dialogue on emerging technologies, the OECD established the Global Forum on Technology. This platform provides an avenue for stakeholders from different countries and sectors to come together and discuss the challenges and opportunities presented by these new technologies.

This engagement ensures that decisions made by intergovernmental organisations are well-informed and incorporate perspectives from various stakeholders.

The importance of multi-stakeholder and interdisciplinary engagement in decision-making within intergovernmental organisations is evident through the OECD’s network of AI experts.

With more than 400 experts from different stakeholder communities, the OECD is able to tap into a wide range of expertise and perspectives. This inclusivity ensures that the decisions made by the organisation are comprehensive and representative of diverse viewpoints.

Recognising the need to keep pace with emerging technologies, intergovernmental organisations like the OECD have established dedicated working groups that focus on different sectors.

These working groups, such as those on compute, climate, and AI future, allow for a deeper understanding of the specific challenges and opportunities posed by each sector. By focusing on these emerging technology sectors, intergovernmental organisations can proactively address the unique issues that arise within each area.

High-level principles, such as trustworthiness, responsibility, accountability, inclusiveness, and alignment with human rights, are considered important and relevant for all technologies.

Intergovernmental organisations aspire to develop technologies that are trustworthy, responsible, and inclusive, while also being aligned with human rights. It is essential to factor in potential risks to human rights and ensure accountability in the development processes of these technologies.

However, there is often a gap between these high-level principles and their actual implementation in specific technologies.

Variations exist between technologies, and the importance of certain issues like data bias may be specific to AI. This calls for a careful examination and consideration of these factors during the governance processes of emerging technologies.

To address the complexity and differing requirements of different technologies, there may be a need to break up the governance processes into smaller components.

By doing so, intergovernmental organisations can accommodate the varying expertise and process requirements associated with different technologies. This approach ensures that governance structures are tailored to the specific needs of each technology, promoting more effective decision-making and implementation.

In conclusion, intergovernmental organisations have shown their ability to be agile, adaptable, and evidence-based in the face of emerging technologies.

The OECD’s fast adoption of AI principles and the establishment of the Global Forum on Technology exemplify their commitment to staying at the forefront of technological advancements. The inclusive and interdisciplinary approach to decision-making, along with the focus on specific technology sectors, further enhances the effectiveness of intergovernmental organisations in addressing the challenges and harnessing the opportunities presented by emerging technologies.

Report

The analysis examines the perspectives surrounding future technologies and their impact on marginalized groups, as well as the governance and development of these technologies.

One argument put forward is that future technology developments may not necessarily bring positive impacts, particularly for marginalized groups.

New technologies like quantum-related developments, metaverse platforms, nanotech, and human-machine interfaces can be complex and intimidating, making it difficult for already marginalized individuals to access and benefit from them. This highlights the potential for further exacerbation of inequalities if technology is not developed and implemented in an inclusive manner.

On the other hand, there is a strong emphasis on the importance of inclusive technology development and governance. The argument asserts that the development and governance of technology should be more inclusive, particularly in relation to marginalized groups.

This approach recognizes the need for diverse perspectives and experiences to be considered to avoid further marginalisation and ensure equitable access to technological advancements.

Furthermore, the analysis suggests that governments and industry stakeholders should prioritise engaging in multistakeholder discussions related to technology developments.

Examples such as the IGF Best Practice Forum on Cybersecurity and the policy network on internet fragmentation are cited as instances of successful multistakeholder dialogue. This underscores the significance of collaboration and cooperation among various stakeholders to ensure that technological advancements are beneficial and meet the needs of all.

In terms of future-proofing, an important observation is that high-tech solutions are not the only way to achieve this.

While future technologies are often associated with cutting-edge advancements, it is important to recognise that future-proofing can also involve other approaches that do not solely rely on high-tech solutions.

Another noteworthy perspective is the advocacy for connecting multilateral spaces through people and not solely through novel technology.

The analysis highlights the need to improve and enhance existing spaces where work is being done, making them more diverse, inclusive, and connected. By prioritising diversity and inclusivity in these spaces, stakeholders can foster collaboration, coordination, and cooperation, ultimately leading to more effective and equitable outcomes.

The analysis also praises the United Nations’ Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as an open, inclusive deliberative space that plays a crucial role in discussing and shaping technology governance.

It emphasises the significance of preserving and enhancing spaces like the IGF, which offer unique opportunities for stakeholders to come together, exchange ideas, and collaboratively address the challenges associated with technology governance.

Additionally, transparency, engagement, and the preservation of user autonomy are considered fundamental principles that should be upheld in technology governance.

The analysis argues that good governance principles, which are already known, should be applied to new technologies. This includes timely and clear information sharing that is accessible to a wide range of individuals, ensuring transparency and meaningful engagement.

Another notable point is the integration of high-level principles, specifically the international human rights framework, in guiding the use of technologies.

The analysis highlights that technologies like AI and data impact various aspects of life and suggests that the international human rights framework can be embedded throughout the technology supply chain through standards. This approach promotes a rights-respecting world where everyone benefits and ensures that the development and usage of technology uphold human rights.

In conclusion, the analysis presents various perspectives on the impact and governance of future technologies.

It highlights the importance of inclusive technology development, multistakeholder engagement, connecting multilateral spaces through people, and embedding high-level principles such as the international human rights framework. By considering these perspectives and incorporating them into technology governance, it is possible to strive towards a more equitable and beneficial technological future.

Report

The analysis highlights several key points regarding disruptive technologies, global digital governance, and the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). Firstly, it emphasizes the need for a change in approach towards disruptive technologies. As technologies continue to develop rapidly, with increasing complexity, it is important to adopt a more distant perspective to effectively regulate them.

The analysis suggests that machines and algorithms can play a crucial role in developing regulations for disruptive technologies, taking into account their unique characteristics and potential impact.

In terms of governance, the analysis asserts that collaboration is a better approach than conflict.

It argues that leaders have been losing sight of the notion of cooperation, which is crucial for achieving sustainable and effective global digital governance. Collaboration is believed to promote a better working environment and foster long-term solutions to complex challenges.

Moreover, the analysis delves into the regulation of AI.

It argues that human beings are relatively stable over time, which necessitates the adaptation of regulations surrounding AI. The historical reactions to new technologies, including fear of job loss and ignorance of technology’s potential, are cited to highlight the need for a balanced and adaptable regulatory framework.

The analysis also highlights the importance of building a network of norms in response to advancements in AI.

It emphasizes the need for different levels of harmonization depending on the context and argues that institutional arrangements should adapt to technological innovations to effectively govern AI.

Additionally, the analysis makes an interesting observation about the notion of a multi-stakeholder approach.

It suggests that this concept is here to stay and proposes that with technology dematerializing, rule-making should also dematerialize. This means that decisions should be made based on stakeholder involvement rather than geographical boundaries, indicating a shift towards a more inclusive and participatory governance model.

In conclusion, the analysis brings attention to the need for a change in approach towards disruptive technologies, the importance of collaboration over conflict in global digital governance, the need to adapt regulation of AI in response to human stability, the necessity of building a network of norms to govern AI advances, and the significance of the multi-stakeholder approach in dematerializing rule-making.

These insights provide valuable considerations for policymakers and organizations looking to navigate the complex landscape of disruptive technologies and governance in the digital age.