Session 1

Experts Debate Switzerland’s Future as a Digital Governance Leader at Geneva Press Club Panel

At the Geneva Press Club, a panel convened to discuss the pressing question: Is Switzerland at risk of losing its status as a leader in digital governance? The panel featured a diverse group of experts, including Dr. Jovan Kurbalija, Executive Director of the Diplo Foundation; Grégoire Barbey, journalist for Le Temps; Francesca Bosco, Chief Strategy Officer at the Cyber Peace Institute; and Ambassador Thomas Schneider, Director of International Relations for the Swiss Federal Office of Communication.

Kasmira Jefford, Editor-in-Chief of Geneva Solutions, moderated the discussion, which delved into the challenges and opportunities facing Switzerland and International Geneva in the rapidly evolving digital landscape. The panelists explored various facets of digital governance, from the historical context of Geneva’s role to the current and future implications of technological advancements such as artificial intelligence (AI).

Dr. Kurbalija highlighted the importance of terminology in discussions about digital governance, emphasizing that underlying technologies like the internet protocol (TCPIP) are central to all digital interactions. He also stressed the need for strategic thinking about the future impact of AI on traditional activities like reporting and the importance of involving organizations from the Global South in Geneva’s digital governance ecosystem.

Grégoire Barbey shared insights from his investigative work, noting concerns about Geneva’s capacity to remain a key player in digital governance discussions. He pointed out challenges such as funding limitations for NGOs, geopolitical shifts, and potential budgetary constraints for Switzerland itself.

Francesca Bosco underscored the need for a sustainable ecosystem approach to digital governance, where long-term planning and collaboration among diverse stakeholders are paramount. She cited examples of successful collaborations, such as the Cyber Peace Institute’s work with The Hague and the Cyber Peace Builders program, which leverages private sector expertise to support NGOs.

Ambassador Schneider addressed the balance between Switzerland’s ambitions in digital governance and the reality on the ground, acknowledging the competition for resources and the complexity of the digital policy landscape. He emphasized the need for Switzerland to be strategic and innovative in leveraging its resources and partnerships.

The discussion also touched on the potential for Geneva to rebrand itself in the digital sphere and the idea of the UN developing its own digital platform for intergovernmental negotiations. The conversation concluded with a call for Switzerland to be agile, innovative, and strategic in its approach to digital governance to maintain its global influence.

Moderator:
Madame, Monsieur, chers amis, bonjour, bienvenue au Club Suisse de la Presse. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Geneva Press Club. It is a pleasure to welcome Geneva Solutions team for this very last lunch talk of the season. Today’s question could not be more of a hot topic here in Geneva. Is Switzerland losing its status as a leader in digital governance? Welcome to those following online, to you, of course, and thank you to Kasmira Jefford, the editor-in-chief of Geneva Solutions, for the great panel she’s set up for us today. After the talk, ladies and gentlemen, here, you’ll have the floor for a few questions, questions online to you, then a light lunch will be served and we’ll be speaking both English and some French too today, and Kasmira, you have the floor. Thank you.

Kasmira Jefford:
Good afternoon, everybody. So, I’d like to welcome first our wonderful panel. To the far left, we have Dr. Jovan Kurbalija, who’s the executive director of the Diplo Foundation and head of the Geneva Internet Platform, Grégoire Barbet, journalist for Le Temps, for whom I have special thanks for this panel because it’s inspired by his recent article, Investigation for Le Temps, on this topic, Francesca Bosco from the Cyber Peace Institute, who’s chief strategy officer there. And online, we have Ambassador Thomas Schneider, who’s the director of international relations for the Swiss Federal Office of Communication, and who also chairs the Council of Europe’s Committee on Artificial Intelligence. So, yes, good afternoon, let’s get started. So, since the 1940s, when the telegraph was still the big innovation of the day in communications and the ITU, the standard-setting body, moved from Bern to Geneva, and then later with the birth of the World Wide Web here at CERN, a whole host of organizations, private sector and NGOs, have gravitated around Geneva, specialized in what we loosely refer to as digital governance. In 2003, we had a UN working group meeting not far from here, tasked with coming up with one of the earliest definitions of internet governance. So, from early on, International Geneva has been involved in trying to shape this global phenomenon. Behind that, Switzerland, as host country, has also said over the years that it wants to strengthen this digital international Geneva. But fast forward to today, it’s not that simple, as our guests will talk about. There are huge challenges ahead to the future of digital governance, and big challenges to Geneva and Switzerland maintaining its competitive edge. So, is it up to the tasks? That’s what we’ll be exploring. So, I’m going to turn first to Grégoire. Before we get into some of these issues in more detail, can you tell us what got you interested in this story, and what do you find out, some of the main key findings? Thank you.

Grégoire Barbey:
Thank you, Kasmira. I’m going to speak in French, because I’m more comfortable, I’m going to spare your ears. So, yes, the reason why I did this survey, at first, was that I got a call from several personalities from different non-governmental organizations, in particular, in informal discussions like this. They told me a little bit about their fears, and they transmitted their grievances. And I wondered if there was a topic. So, I continued to ask questions to different organizations, to the authorities too, of course, to get their point of view. And that’s how the article was born. And what I found, if you can say it like that, is that there were, in particular, on the part of the actors of this Geneva International focused on this aspect of digital governance, concerns about the capacity of Geneva to remain an important place for these discussions, because there are different events, different contexts that also arouse concerns. In particular, there is probably a lack of generalized means within non-governmental organizations because of the geopolitical context today. Donors are becoming rarer, more demanding. The possible election of Donald Trump at the end of the year could still accelerate this process, so there are concerns about that. There are also concerns about Switzerland itself, which is itself faced with budgetary difficulties, which could in the coming months make decisions on the future of its high-level state policy, which could perhaps see its means reduced or perhaps not. We don’t know yet, but that’s one of the fears that the actors have. And then there are also non-governmental organizations here that have trouble carrying out their mission because they have little means. And in particular, we recently had Internet Society, which is still one of these large non-governmental organizations that are part of this landscape of digital governance, which decided to close the doors of its office in Geneva, continue to work in the area, but they simply preferred to put the money they had available, not in a bailout, but in their mission, because Geneva is expensive and because they have less means. These are elements that, put together, show that there are fears, and these fears are interesting to address, to see what the response can be, both from the authorities, but also from the actors of this digital governance, to get together and strengthen the role that Geneva can play in these discussions.

Kasmira Jefford:
Jovan, would you be able to just give us a quick definition of what we mean by digital governance? Because it’s so vast, I mean, we could be talking about anything, and is this one of the issues? Should South Central Geneva be kind of working on what it means or where it wants, where its strengths could lie or should lie? Thank you.

Jovan Kurbalija:
Thank you, Kasmira, and congratulations for Gregoire for raising this issue. When he asked me to comment on it, I thought, okay, we were fishing for minnows for the problem of NGOs, but we are going to quote a whale, because the changes ahead of us are much bigger than just this, but you triggered the great discussion. Thank you for that. Thank you for colleagues coming today here. Boris, could you hear me? Yes, that’s it. Well, the question is sometimes terminological. I argue that there is no AI governance, there is no digital governance. What we experience today, including the Zoom call or using our mobile, is basically done through the so-called internet protocol TCPIP. Therefore, all our digital reality till now, all the relevance for governance is governed by TCPIP. When I was at the UN, there was, you know, how you have digital AI governance, there are fancy topics all over the place, but they say technically deep down, everything of relevance for governance, including charge EPT, including AI, is basically based on TCPIP. Therefore, there is nothing beyond internet governance. If you don’t want to dive and to discuss, let’s say, algorithms, what now we’re very skeptical and very critical about overall AI governance discussion. What does it mean? Shall I read the book? Okay, it’s 600 pages of the list of the activities of digital internet AI governance in Geneva. Now, when people ask, is Geneva relevant? Yes, it is relevant. And it’s not just that I stated, by the way, this is backed by line by line. effects, working groups, committees, standardization bodies dealing with digital, or summarized in the passport. Now, digital governance or internet governance is basically how my mobile or your notebook is produced, standards, technologies, everything else, WTO, e-commerce, supply chains, what is on my mobile, what I use, content, encryption, and other issues, and how I use mobile, how it impacts society, crime, e-commerce, and other issues. This is definition of internet slash digital slash AI slash cyber. You use whatever prefix is fashionable at the time. But that’s about it. How is it produced? How I communicate via it, via cables, via Wi-Fi, how the content on my mobile is basically managed in terms of encryption, content policy, human rights, freedom, and how the way I use my mobile. I’m simplifying to mobile. It could be WhatsApp and everything else. How it impacts society? Is it making better or worse societies, including criminality? Is society more secure or not? That’s basically what digital governance in its qualities, or even simpler, it is when we make a call as citizens, and companies, and countries, and ask, I have a problem. I need child safety regulation. I need e-commerce protection. I need AI governance. Who is picking up these phone calls on international level? On national level, even in Switzerland, very well-organized society, I tested and I can discuss it. There are not that many phone calls that you can call, let alone on international level. Therefore, digital governance, internet governance, AI governance is facing enormous challenges because people are asking the questions on cybercrime, on YouTube, and nobody’s speaking. picking up those calls.

Kasmira Jefford:
Well, we’ve picked up a, we have made a call and we made that call to Ambassador Thomas Schneider here on online. So, turning over to you, Dan, there seems to be from what Gregoire was picked up in his piece and mentioned just now, this kind of mismatch between the ambitions placed on Switzerland and Geneva in terms of digital governance and the reality on the ground with many NGOs and civil society complaining of insufficient funding and support to meet those lofty expectations. Is Switzerland dropping the ball?

Thomas Schneider:
Yes, thank you. Can you hear me?

Kasmira Jefford:
We can hear you, yes.

Thomas Schneider:
Okay, thanks. And thanks for inviting me to this discussion. I think it’s an important one in particular for us as people living in Switzerland and caring about this. Well, it is, and it’s nice how Jovan simplifies things sometimes, that’s helpful. On the other hand, of course, it is not so simple. First of all, the question is, what do you mean by digital governance and where exactly should, would Switzerland be considered in losing out? The fact that the ISOC is not maintaining an office may have, and I don’t know what you investigated in what the reasons are that may have simple, let’s say home office reasons, what have you, that may have also to do with the fact that the so-called ISR institutions like ICANN, ISOC and others have thought in the last few years that basically they have secured their place in the critical internet resource management, political discussions, and they would not need to invest maybe in cultivating dialogue with politicians, with the intergovernmental institutions, with the whole community, but they are coming back. into that discussion because they realized that when the discussions going on in New York on the GDC and also on the WSIS plus 20 that the multi-stakeholder approach, the inclusive approach that encompasses all stakeholders is not carved in stone and that we have some pressure from some governments to get more governmental control or intergovernmental control over the internet or the digital space. So I would not hook everything on ISOC’s closing offices. It also has become public that ICANN which is the institution that manages the domain name system has a new CEO that is not based in LA like all the other CEOs before but he’s actually he will be physically be based in Geneva starting the office from December. So that could be if you take it as a single sign that would argue for things going in the other direction. But of course the issue is and it’s relevant to discuss this and I think we should remember that 20 years ago when Switzerland was the host of the WSIS of the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society that was still a new issue. There were not as many institutions and processes involved at that time since then in the last 20 years the whole system has extremely diversified has become much more complex and obviously the issue is also attractive to other cities or regions that want to be or become or remain a global leader in digital policy. We have some cities in Europe like in the Netherlands. We have of course New York as an important actor. We do have some Arab and Gulf states that want to become more powerful actors that do have way more resources that the Swiss have. 20 years ago we have asked in the beginning we have asked the parliament for 10 millions to organize the WSIS. In the end we had… ask them to give us more than 20 millions, not counting all the thousands of work hours of the administration that went with it. And it’s obvious that as a small country, you can’t do this every year. So we have to be very mindful that our resources are limited, that we use them intelligently, that the more processes there are, bet on the right horses and do what we can. So yeah, I’ll stop here for the time being, and it’s not so simple that there are so many processes, there’s so many things going on, and our resources are limited. So we have to be very intelligent and cautious and partner and build on existing structures to leverage with the minimal delta of additional resources, leverage the most effect possible. Thank you.

Kasmira Jefford:
So what you’re saying is that, you’re arguing that there’s not necessarily dropping the ball, forgive my simple language, but there’s more competition for those resources, the landscapes become much more complicated. But I mean, where does that leave NGOs here who do need more support in that now complex landscape? I can turn to Francesca Bosco. The Cyber Peace Institute was not launched that long ago in 2019, and does important work in protecting and preparing NGOs and other organizations against cyber attacks. Where do you see the opportunity for Switzerland to be more active in this space, or maybe not Switzerland, other outside parties that could help and invest and enrich that ecosystem here?

Francesca Bosco:
Thank you so much for the question, and I would like to start thanking, well, Gregoire for the excellent article, but I mean, truly providing a multi-stakeholder kind of like picture of the ecosystem, interviewing different entities, and congratulations to you also for the organization of this panel, which is well representing what we are seeing as well. well. It’s interesting because I’m coming, let’s say, I always say I jump on the other side of the fence because I spent most of my life at the UN, then at the World Economic Forum, and then I joined the Cyberspace Institute. As you very well said, it’s an NGO. So I kind of like navigated through the landscape of Geneva, of the international Geneva, with different hats. And I think also the speakers before me very well depicted one of the general feelings. There are many initiatives. So to Thomas’ point, there are several processes, several initiatives. It’s not, I mean, I don’t think that necessarily the resources are limited because there are quite some resources invested. And this is also why the international Geneva kind of like historically flourished until one point where we started seeing from also, I mean, different non-profit entities kind of like abandoning the field. I mean, so I think it’s very important to reflect on why. One of the reasons that I can see also from an NGO perspective is that I think there’s, I mean, quite an interest in coming to Geneva for several reasons. So specifically, let’s say with the human rights and humanitarian hat. And this is also why the Institute was created in Geneva. But then there is a difficulty in scaling and sustaining these activities over time. And also what I think it’s missing is we’re all assuming when we talk about the international Geneva, we kind of like take it for granted. There’s not the real identity of the international Geneva. When I say identity is because I think what we’ve been seeing missing is not initiative, is not a creativity, is not a willingness, is the ecosystem approach. And that’s where I think there can be an opportunity and improvement. the diverse ecosystem of actors that you have in Geneva are competent. They are excellent. From public authorities to academia, and I can tell for, let’s say, for the opportunities that we had to interact with the different partners here. So, with the private sector companies, with other civil society organizations, with the media. But then you need to, I mean, what I always say, it’s not enough to have, let’s say, collaborations and initiatives that are opportunistic. You need to have long-term planning, and you need to have a sort of, like, facilitation of the different actors to get together and work together on a sort of, like, a common goal. This is what I think it’s a little bit missing, and it’s an opportunity. I would like just to mention one report that we worked on last year. It’s called NGOs Serving Humanity at Risk, the Cyber Threats Affecting International Geneva. And we conducted this study, also, thanks to the Republic and Canton of Geneva, so in collaboration with the local authority. And thanks to that, we also recently signed a partnership with the Ville de Genève. In this report, we collaborated with the different academic institutions in Geneva. We launched it, also, at an event in collaboration with the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and with the knowledge coming from different cybersecurity and private sector companies here in Geneva. So it’s possible. What the report is saying is that there is, in general, I mean, the sense of, like, lack of support and technical expertise, the fact that there is a willingness, also, for the different non-profit entities that are here in Geneva to be able to invest more, for example, on cybersecurity. but they often, let’s say, are missing not only necessarily the awareness, but also the understanding, as Jovan was saying, or who to call. So having, let’s say, a more proactive and kind of like also more constructive approach when it comes to how we can provide digital resilience solutions for the international Geneva at scale. The Cyber Peace Institute is playing its role, and it’s kind of like pushing with, let’s say, with the different entities that we are interacting with, but then we need this ecosystem approach to make it sustainable over time and also to scale it to all the international NGOs, local NGOs, international organizations, the different entities that are collaborating. So what I think it’s missing is not necessarily the resources, it’s a sort of like meaningful use of the resources and a long-term view for investing those resources.

Kasmira Jefford:
It’s really interesting, thank you. And I think that’s also complicated when the ground underneath is shifting all the time. And Jovan, you’ve written and talked a lot about the huge impact that AI is already having on all sectors and companies and organizations and that this needs more attention. What do you think needs to change here, and where does there need to be more focus and investment?

Jovan Kurbalija:
Many, many things. And it reminds me of the New York City at the beginning of the 20th century. They had a problem with too many horse coaches, and then they developed a solution to have some sort of special pumpers for horses to collect their biological products because it was littering the streets of New York. It happened just four years before the emergence of the cars. There was a huge project of New York City authorities. to take care of the horses’ carriages and what horses are producing, including very innovative horses’ pumpers, basically was, somehow I have a feeling that we are living in a similar moment. Changes, it’s not only in future, future is today. By the way, Diplo will report from this meeting with just-in-time reporting by using AI. And if you think about this city, what this city is doing, diplomats, journalists, NGOs, they’re reporting, reporting back to capitals, to their superiors, reporting to UN bodies, reporting from events. That activity is basically, to the large extent, gone. Now, I’m speaking about Diplo, whose annual budget is a daily budget of open AI processing of data. It’s in the range of two million, not only for Geneva activities, for global activities. Therefore, that’s basically what we have to discuss. What will happen with the old machinery of the big systems where the core aspect, which is reporting, is basically replaced? Text. If you think about Geneva, text, it’s in its core. From typewriting machines 40 years ago to the data, it’s changing profoundly. It’s changing journalism, it’s changing diplomacy, it’s changing international organization. This is when Gregory and I discussed, and I said, yes, it is a problem, support for civil society, and we need the funding, but it’s necessary, but far from sufficient condition to address what is today, it’s not even future, let alone in three to five years’ time. Therefore, the whole systems will have to do considerably rebooting, including civil society. On very practical point, if we want to develop horse pumpers, I would push for civil society from the global south. ISOC is fine, but ISOC is basically more or less bit of civil society, but bit. of a lobbyist organization from the global north. What about Indonesian, Indian, South African, Brazilian NGOs? They come for the meeting and go day back. They don’t have impact on day-to-day decision shaping. Therefore, if Geneva wants to become relevant as, and I’m highlighting it, as a global hub for digital and internet governance, ultimate priority is to involve global south NGOs, thinking organizations, universities, and other actors. People from the global north will come and they’re coming back. I think internet society was more, let’s say, as Thomas said, more small incident. They’re coming back. We have a new Arcadia Foundation and they’re coming back. I wouldn’t be bothered about them. But we are having huge gap in this outer rim of international Geneva beyond the UN. In the UN, countries negotiate with their capacities. But if you move into outer rim, you don’t have voices from the global south. And this is a huge problem for future of Geneva. Therefore, let’s think before removing the horse bumpers and finding the situation like New York City authority and think really strategically what will happen in five years time with development of AI. And B, if we have to invest in removing horse bumpers, let’s invest in the horses which are coming from different places.

Kasmira Jefford:
I think, yeah, not only in digital governance, but across all multilateral, multi-stakeholder discussions in Geneva that this point about needing more inclusion from member states, from global south is really, really important. Before we turn to Thomas Schneider again, Grégoire, what do you think the Conseil Fédéral should do to strengthen this role? encourage or attract this more inclusive conversation?

Grégoire Barbey:
What I can already say is that it’s not up to me to say what the Federal Council should do. However, what I have noticed is that there have been several reports, including those of the Cyber Peace Institute, but also the report of the Foundation for Geneva in 2020, which highlighted quite a few points that deserve, at least according to them, but I think it’s quite shared in the ecosystem, improvement points. Internet Society is really a detail, but it’s still a symptom, I think, of one of the elements that was mentioned in this report written by Michael Kendi, which is the very high cost of living in Geneva, which is one of the things on which authorities can potentially influence, but it’s not the only point, it’s by far a rather anecdotal point. But beyond that, I think there is, and this is what Yohann was saying, an issue that is much more important, on the importance that artificial intelligence will take in our lives, and the discourse that certain things will disappear, as if it were obvious. I don’t think that’s the case, and I think that internet governance, digital governance in the broad sense, must decide, globally, with the actors of the world, if this perspective is the one we want as human societies. And that’s the challenge of digital governance. In general, the challenges that the United Nations faces in their discussions is to decide what the orientations of the world are. And we need that, and I think there is a lack of interest at the level of the authorities, in fact, for these issues of digitization, which are not well addressed enough. We even see it at the local level. The policies that are carried out in the field of digital are quite poor and not defended enough from the point of view of public debate. In fact, we don’t debate them often, and they are still issues that are addressed in panels of experts, essentially. And it’s also one of the remarks that is made in my article, it’s to include more precisely these non-governmental organizations to have their point of view in these discussions which are very important, but which are technical and which must also include the issues of civil society.

Kasmira Jefford:
So turning to Thomas Schneider, listening to the three guests, what’s your reaction to some of these points and what do you think is important for Switzerland to focus on?

Thomas Schneider:
Yes, thank you. And I think many things have been said that are very valuable and also true. I think one thing, and something that I keep saying also, I’m not the federal councillor, just somebody working for the government that also has to basically work with what we are given, that there is a certain mismatch between the expectation from the parliament, from the media, from the general public that Switzerland should be, Geneva should be, Switzerland should be an influential actor and Geneva should be an important place, and the resources that we are given to actually do this. And of course, this is also logical because we have shrinking, or we have growing tasks on the public side and shrinking budgets, or at least non-growing budgets. And of course, we can try and become more efficient with digital technology, using digital technologies and so on, like Johan has said, many things can be done, but in the end, a lot of it is manpower. And we would be, many people in the administration would be willing to do more, but you can only do whatever you have the resources for. And money is probably the lesser problem than also, again, the manpower. I think it is therefore crucial that in particular those living, working in Geneva, knowing in Geneva, keep explaining this to the Swiss politicians, to the Swiss media, to the Swiss people who vote, who vote for people who then decide about budgets, and in particular me living in Zurich. Sometimes Geneva is very far away from, let’s say, German-speaking Eastern Switzerland, and it would be good to explain the value of Geneva, the value of an active Swiss role in terms of shaping our future lives and, let’s say, a rules-based world order, also in the German part of Switzerland, because this is the majority of people that vote for budgets, and you can never do enough to communicate this to the people that take the decisions. That’s one element. On the other hand, again, I think, yeah, we are not the only… Geneva is, in fact, a very small place given to other places that have way more resources, way more power in many ways, so we are not doing that bad, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t just sit there and not do nothing, because then if you stand still, of course, you will lose out. We have to remain strategic, remain very intelligent, again, on where we put our resources, with whom we partner, how we try to make and keep Geneva attractive, that has, of course, let’s say, a quality of life component, which is not that bad, I guess. It has a technical infrastructure component, also providing for the right services from UN to NGO institutions in Geneva, and we know that there is a need for action. in many areas, also my colleagues in the foreign ministry of course, this is an important issue that they observe very closely. So we know that there is need for action and we know that we do have some resources, they are limited and we try our best to actually get things done and keep up to the developments. We also know that it would sometimes be useful to have a closer cooperation with the authorities in Geneva, that is not necessarily a lack of interest, but again this to sit together, discuss strategic and so on also takes time and resources. We also know that if you look at for instance at the Arab region that we have very big players that try to become global hubs, but we do have some advantages that because we have many things that are existing in Geneva, the delta to create additional stuff or to do new projects or deal with new issues is smaller. So we can actually, we have put us in a situation where we can create new things with less resources than maybe elsewhere and we really have to keep this and this only works if we remain, if we keep the spirit of interdisciplinary multi-stakeholder cooperation between all the actors possible in Geneva and with Geneva that I would also add Paris with actors like UNESCO and OECD and others that are crucial in digital policy and in Strasbourg with the Council of Europe and so on and so forth. So we need to know what we want, we need to have a network of people that help us sense on where to put our resources, where to put the focus and again invest intelligently, but we also may have to be an NGO and the ecosystem may need to be more innovative in mobilizing private resources because again we are trying to do more and more things with not more resources from the public side and this. is a tendency that may not change so quickly. So that we need to be innovative also in attracting funds, in cooperation that is also, let’s say, independent of where people physically are located as long as we have a spirit of Geneva and a vision of Geneva and the cooperation and interdisciplinary cooperation, Geneva style, in order to make us different or keep us different from other places that may have more resources but maybe produce less outcomes because they don’t have this spirit of cooperation and trying to get things done in a pragmatic way. Thank you.

Kasmira Jefford:
Thanks. And just turning to Francesca before we then close for kind of last round of comments, you mentioned this creating a sustainable ecosystem, the importance of collaboration and Thomas talked about the competition between other cities but perhaps these issues are bigger than just one city alone. We can be caught up in this bubble of thinking, okay, how do we make Geneva the center for judicial governance, when in fact we should be talking about collaborations across cities and I was wondering from your work, from your perspective, how far do those collaborations go in perhaps linking you to other organizations in Paris or Beijing or New York and are you seeing bigger collaborations than just in our small Geneva ecosystem?

Francesca Bosco:
So thank you so much for the question and I was also trying let’s say to think about the excellent inputs given by the speakers. I think so let me address first your question. Yes, definitely. I can give you a very practical example of what happened, what is kind of like what we curated over time and And since last year, we have a good example of an ecosystem because, thanks to the municipality of The Hague, for example, to make it simple, let’s say, they kind of like us as two in collaboration with other local partners, but also with a global footprint. So I’m thinking about organizations like Shadow Server and some other organizations that are based in The Hague as well, to via what is called the humanity hub, basically to secure the NGOs that are registered in The Hague. So this is a very practical way of how you can create a sort of like a virtual ecosystem, including public institutions, including NGOs, NGOs helping NGOs, and also with the collaboration of private sector companies and with academic institutions in The Hague. So this is already happening. Thanks to that experience, we strengthen also the collaboration with local authorities here in Geneva. And for example, we are currently discussing with Montreal for a very similar approach. So that’s why I’m saying this is already happening and it’s possible. And again, this is a clear example of what I was mentioning before, also in response to what Jovan was mentioning in terms of the mushrooming of different initiatives. Again, it’s not necessarily, let’s say, did the lack of initiatives, but it’s more having a sort of like a coordinated approach around these initiatives. And also a sort of like I tend to agree with what Thomas was mentioning in terms of the role of the public and the private sector, where I think that the public sector should kind of like, let’s say, raise the bar, is being a sort of like promoting this sort of. of like a coordinated approach. Then indeed, I think there are potential when it comes to resources. And I’m mentioning just the two big examples. When it comes to creative ways to engage with the private sector, for example, at the Cyber Peace Institute, we developed this specific program that is called the Cyber Peace Builders by which cybersecurity and private companies that are employing basically cyber skilled employees can provide both the support and volunteers to the Institute and the Institute is managing this program by which we are providing free cybersecurity support for other non-profits entities. So this is a clear way of how to wisely, let’s say, and I would say responsibly use funding coming from the private sector while also fostering this culture of collaboration that Thomas was mentioning. And then I used intentionally the word responsible. Another opportunity that we have is to call more and coming, let’s say, from the tradition of Geneva of being kind of like the house, I would say, of human rights and international peace is to call for a responsible investment, both from the private sector companies or even for, let’s say, unusual actors. One example that I can bring to the table is the dialogue that we’ve been able to build. And again, thanks also to the canton of Geneva with the foundation, so with the philanthropic actors here in Geneva. And we are currently working on a report to understand that their cybersecurity posture, but also how they can be responsible donors in the sense of like being championing cybersecurity among their grantees and interacting also with the different authorities. So there are practical examples that can be followed, but again, we need the ecosystem approach to scale them. and keep them running for a long time.

Kasmira Jefford:
Thank you. I think Gregor had wanted to quickly jump in there and say something. I’ll close with you, Jovan. No, you go first.

Jovan Kurbalija:
Oh, sorry. No, Kasmira, on this ecosystem and cooperation, we did one simple exercise last year. We scrolled all websites in International Geneva and found 120 million links. Any link on the website, Diplo website, Cyber Peace Institute, UNOG, WHO, WIPO. 122 million links. Then we did analysis and say how many of these links point to other Geneva institutions. Therefore, how many of our links, we are relatively good, point to Cyber Peace Institute, to WHO, to WIPO, in our reports, in our blog posts, in our event reports. And we got a shocking result. We call it X-ray of the International Geneva. The level of links, and we will share it, you can access through the website, is 0, 0, not 1%, 0.48%. Therefore, when I write the text, I don’t refer to the WHO or WIPO. I refer, incidentally, that we have the AI system which now gives priority of resources of International Geneva. But then we have all of these events speaking about cooperation ecosystem and one X-ray. Apart from narratives, apart from the rhetorics, when you put X-ray, you say there is no cooperation. Well, it’s not the only cooperation, but it is indicative element that can you give you bearings. Do we consider each other work relevant? We don’t do that. And this is a big problem. And I think we have to do something, not tomorrow, but yesterday, to make sure not to force WHO to link to WTO. Doesn’t make sense. But to find the ways, hey, by the way, there is a good… your study on health and trade. Why don’t you link to that and vice versa? Therefore, for us, it was a shocking finding of the discrepancy between rhetorics and reality.

Kasmira Jefford:
There was collaboration and then there’s collaboration or manifestation of that collaboration. Gregoire, turning to you then.

Grégoire Barbey:
I think that there is a paradox between a very strong desire to display Switzerland as a major place of world governance in general, not just on the digital level, and the means that are granted to the federal offices that are in charge of carrying out this mission. But there are also things that can already be done with the current means. And something that quite surprised me during my investigation, which I did not mention in my article because we had to make choices, but for example, quite stupidly, the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, which has commissioned CyberSafe, which is an association that generally works to carry out cybersecurity audits with private companies and municipal associations, which mandated this association rather than the CyberPeace Institute, which, from my point of view, seemed to indicate, to carry out a pilot project of analysis of 10 non-governmental organizations, 10 international organizations, to analyze their cybersecurity. For example, we have an actor who does this in a specialized way, with his program CyberPeace Builders, and who proposes this as part of a global ecosystem. And then I asked myself the question, but why didn’t we turn to this institution, which somehow seems to indicate, since it is already in this ecosystem? Things like that can sometimes seem anecdotal, but they show that maybe at the global level there is a lack of coherence in political action around these issues. And it’s interesting to be able to take these things up to do better. But that doesn’t mean that what is already done is not well done. Lovecom, in particular, has little resources but already does a lot of things. So it’s to get to the best, and not to say that what is already done today is not enough or bad, quite simply.

Kasmira Jefford:
Do you have some last parting thoughts before questions?

Francesca Bosco:
Just to mention one thing that, again, reality of what we’ve been living, and thanks for mentioning this last point, to Jovan’s point about the links, that’s interesting because I have to say that, so the Institute was, let’s say, launched at the end of 2019, we became operational during COVID in May, June 2020, but it took us almost four years, I have to say, to really have a sort of like much more established footprint in Geneva. And now, I was thinking while you were speaking about the different links that we have with institutions in Geneva, how much we refer about them in our blog posts and so on, I would say definitely an increase between 2023 and 2024. Not all the organizations have the luxury, let’s say, and we persisted, basically, but that’s indeed, I mean, also to, let’s say, to give strength to what you were saying in the sense that we need to refer more to the work of each other, but the investment that is needed, it’s not just money, it’s also, unfortunately, the time, and not all organizations have the time, basically, to invest in collaboration. I just want to mention, I think, a couple of points that I think were a little bit missing from the debate. so Thomas mentioned often, we need to explain to the people the value of International Geneva, indeed the bit that is missing, and to a certain point, this is also a good example, meaning, let’s be honest, here we are sort of like, what I say, the usual suspects, in a way. So we are all meeting each other, more or less, at the different events, at the different conferences. The real problem that we have is that we need to make this topic interesting and palatable for the people out there. And we are not really, so far, and I think it’s an honest challenge, but we need to make the people talking about the International Geneva, about digital resilience, about the emerging technology and what it means for society. Unfortunately, there is this link that is missing, a bit what we are doing, for example, at the Cyber Institute, we are trying also to, let’s say, to put the spotlight on the real harm, for example, of cyberattacks on society. So what is the real impact? What is really happening to people when a hospital is attacked, when a digital infrastructure is attacked? But again, we need to transform this into a sort of popular topic and a priority for the people. And then to Jovan’s point about including, for example, more organisations from the Global South, from a civil society perspective, what I’ve seen as a challenge, but then it’s an opportunity for Geneva, is there are a lot of consultations. There are many consultations with civil society organisations. Let’s start co-design with civil society organisations. That’s where Geneva can take a role, because there are already the different actors that you need, but then you don’t need to have initiatives, have solutions where you also ask to civil society what they think about it. you need to have them sitting at the table to design them with the civil society organizations and this is an opportunity that Geneva has.

Kasmira Jefford:
Thank you very much, there’s a lot to unpack there and I think one of the points you made also touches on what Gregoire was saying earlier about, you know, this decision we’ve got to decide what future we want for ourselves and what discussions here in Geneva, what impact it has on those decisions on the ground.

Thomas Schneider:
I’d just like to make two points that try to be a quick one about the living costs in Geneva. I think we are also somehow in a strange narrative there because I’m not sure whether if you want to live in New York, in Paris, in London or in Dubai, 10 minutes from the UN headquarters or 10 minutes from the OECD, that living in these cities is actually significantly cheaper than living in Geneva. Most of the people in Paris or in these places do not live just in walking distance from where things are going on but like an hour outside at the outskirts and of course their life is cheaper. But if you take a circle around one hour around Geneva in France or in Switzerland, then of course you can also live much cheaper than if you live just next to, between Kornel and the UN. So I think this narrative about the big problem of Geneva is the cost. I’m not too sure whether that is actually as important as it is portrayed. That’s one thing and the other one just on Jovan’s point about cooperation and cross-referencing, I fully agree with him that this needs to be used much more and there are good examples like the ITU-led AI for Good Summit where they partner very closely with actually 40 plus UN institutions and institutions. This is the way forward and we’ve seen the success this year. People were queuing for 100 meters out in the street to get into the physical part of the AI for good. So yeah, cross-referencing, working together, using synergies, that is a key element if you are small and if you have limited resources. So I’m fully with Johan that we need to do whatever we can to become even better on this. Thank you.

Kasmira Jefford:
I’ve got a question from one of our people online for you, Thomas Schneiders. So it’s true that the title of the panel was whether Switzerland was losing its status as a leader in digital governance, but we’ve kind of used Switzerland and international Geneva interchangeably during the debate. So the person asked to put it another way, does international Geneva equal Switzerland or does Switzerland’s role as a digital governance go beyond Geneva? Yeah, are we worried about international Geneva losing its status or Switzerland losing its status? Perhaps you could take that question.

Thomas Schneider:
Yes, thank you. Well, it’s linked, but it’s of course not the same. One is Geneva, which is an international ecosystem physically located in this country. And the other one is, let’s say, the impact of the Swiss government plus other stakeholders in the global digital policy area. And I mean, we are a fairly small country and that’s my self-assessment. We are very influential. We are one of the most visible, one of the most influential countries on digital policy in the world. I would say a lot of it, and this is what we have in common with Johan and with others. We have lots of big delegations that ask us for advice and ask us, even the US and others, whether their positions are the right ones. And they listen to us. You will, of course, not also with countries like Brazil, when they create initiatives like NetMundial, you don’t see how much Swiss brainpower and Swiss net networking is behind many things because, of course, this is how you get things done. If you if you fight for glory, then you lose energy. If you fight for ideas and leave the glory sometimes to others, that is much more impactful. So so I would say that one thing is Geneva and one thing is the Swiss impact. But the challenges are the same. We always need to be innovative. We are small. We have to be more agile. We have to bet on the right horses. We have to be networking. And the challenges are similar, but it’s it’s two parts of the same coin.

Kasmira Jefford:
Perhaps we could take do you have time for a couple of questions from the audience? Yes. So the gentleman here and the the left in the middle row.

Audience:
And I work with the Geneva Center for Security Policy, but I used to work with you on your run on at the UN on on these issues, and I was a little surprised there was no mention of ITU in this in this debate, perhaps it’s so self-evident the central role they play that it didn’t mean mentioning or perhaps there’s a narrow definition here of Internet Internet governance. But it seems to me that what they’re doing with ISO and standard settings for AI is very much the sort of next generational post horses, pampers sort of stuff that is is required. I did have a question for the panel and that, you know, if if one looks at the pact for the future that will be adopted in. This year, hopefully in some form, and the digital global compact, which will be annexed to it, it’s really unprecedented for an instrument of that sort to come out of the UN in New York that has such focus on science and technology. If one compares the pact for the future, for example, with the Millennium Declaration in the Millennium Declaration, there was barely any. any mention of science technology. In the pack for the future, it has a very prominent part. And in the global compact, there are, you know, the inklings of new institutions suggested that, at least in the domain of AI, that if there were member state agreement around them, would, if they were, I mean, the documents are silent about where they would be established, but there is certainly a growing interest in making New York a greater part of this debate. So I would, I would ask, you know, the panel, how they see in light of these developments, any shift of the debate from Geneva to New York?

Kasmira Jefford:
Thank you for asking the question that I did actually have that on my list as well. And in part, and I’m glad someone in the audience asked it, who would care to take it? Jovan, I see you picking up the microphones. Thomas?

Thomas Schneider:
Happy to let Jovan go first, but I would also like to say something on this. Or should I start? So I think that’s Fabrizio, right? Great to hear you, by the way. On the ITU, I was mentioning the ITU with the AF Good Summit just a few minutes before, but of course, the ITU is a key institution of this. The ITU has also had challenges in being allowed to become more modern, because one thing is what an institution is wanting to do. The other thing is what the member states let an institution do. We all know that, of course. And about Geneva versus New York, while we do have, of course, the fact that the internet, and this is not just the techie discussion anymore, that is of little geopolitical or economic value or lesser economic value, like it was 20 years ago, this is now at the core of almost everything. So obviously, also in New York, people have ideas and people want to have a say. That doesn’t mean that they can actually get things done on the ground. I don’t think that that will change. But it’s logical that given the importance that digital has in all aspects of our lives, including geopolitical and military and security issues, that this is also discussed in New York. And of course, we do have a situation where we have a secretary general that is at the end of his period, that wants to leave something behind in that sense. And that we do have another ambitious person in a particular role that also is trying to have a role. And I think there’s a particular consolation now that these things are more discussed in New York. But I don’t think that New York will be able to actually do things in the field on New York. I mean, the UN, of course, you also have specialized agencies based in New York. That is something different. Thank you.

Kasmira Jefford:
I think we had some other questions.

Audience:
Thank you. Thank you, Kasmira and the Club Suisse de la Presse and to our speakers, Jérôme Bellion-Jordan, now with the Institute for Global Negotiation, a Zurich-based organization providing support and advice to multilateral negotiations, and formerly a diplomat of the European Union. I have a comment and a question. A comment on, I’m wondering whether there isn’t a bit of a paradox that we are very territorial when we speak digital, in a sense that we are talking about Switzerland, about international Geneva in a digital era. And it could well be that, in fact, the new life of international Geneva would be to rebrand international Geneva in the digital sphere, making better use of all the digital tools at our disposal to connect Geneva. to the rest of the world. One specific example, and that’s my question, I know that during COVID-19 there were some discussions and I haven’t seen anything in the making, why not having the UN instead of relying on private providers for their platforms, all negotiations and consultations online by the UN are done through Webex and private actors to have, you know, means given to the UN office in Geneva to develop a UN platform that can be used for all intergovernmental negotiations, also a way to plug in stakeholders and this being a public good with the branding of Geneva, but for the use globally. So that’s something that I don’t know where we are on that, I know that there were some ideas in making this happen, but I don’t know exactly where we are.

Kasmira Jefford:
Yeah, Francesca, would you like to take that?

Francesca Bosco:
Yeah, well, actually, one of the things, it’s very interesting what you’re mentioning, because having worked all my life in the, let’s say more in the international environment, I do see the relevance, even in this digital era of the local dimension, because again, I go back to the point that I was making before about like the meaningful partnership and collaboration that then can go from the local to international. And the example that you’re making, it’s very interesting, where we’re experimenting something similar, but specifically in the field of shared cybersecurity services. So since last year, we started working with the different nonprofit that are, let’s say, cyber skilled for creating a sort of like a common good, what we call the common good cyber. So basically, joining forces across the globe, to service both, let’s say the international ecosystem. system, for example, of the ones that are, let’s say, under-resourced, and they would need basically to tap into free cybersecurity services. So from the international to the local and vice versa. So strengthening collaboration, as I was mentioning before, for example, in the city of The Hague and so on and so forth. So I think the, let’s say, the virtual cycle needs to be created among the different dimensions. So they’re not necessarily, let’s say, mutually exclusive. There are ways of doing this, but indeed, and especially for the example that you were saying, you need the political will. So we are trying, because we are trying, we’ve been working on this for one year and we’re going to have a big event at the Peace Palace in The Hague on the 30th of September, specifically focusing on this sort of like the need for enhancing cybersecurity for the global good. But it’s requiring many resources that are not necessarily, let’s say, easy to mobilize. So that’s also what we’re doing. I just want to react to one of the things that was mentioned before about the, again, the role of international Geneva and the role of Switzerland, let’s say. I don’t know. Again, I’m here to provide some very practical and tangible example. One of the things that is happening is that last year, together with the World Bank, the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise and the World Economic Forum, we organized in Ghana the Global Cyber Capacity Building Conference, which is basically the first conference and the first gathering that is aiming in linking much more the cybersecurity and the development community. community. Next year, we’ll be in Geneva, because the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs decided to take the lead. And so in 2025, we’re going to have this conference in Geneva. Again, it’s an opportunity not to miss. And this is a clear example of how we can link also, let’s say, the Swiss role with international Geneva role.

Kasmira Jefford:
Thanks very much.

Jovan Kurbalija:
We launched this idea of open source platform, after a few countries during the COVID wouldn’t access UN systems due to the sanctions regimes. They couldn’t access Zoom and Webex and UN found some streaming back solution. Now the situation is becoming even more tricky with AI. We are having AI at UN initiative, by the way, you will see the papers because Zoom is a passive platform. But when you use a corporate AI, and ask corporate AI to advise you on the report on the policy proposals, you’re basically shaping the work of the organization. Therefore, our proposal is the following. Let’s develop open source, transparent AI at the UN, by using analogy to what countries are doing now, contributing sculptures, paintings, buildings, conference rooms. Now, they can start contributing large language models, RAC systems, I won’t go into terminology, knowledge graph for humanitarian issues, all of these issues, all of these issues technically in this proposal are feasible, and we can show how they can work. Unfortunately, with the exception of the few countries from the from the Gulf, who showed interest, nobody clicked. And for me was a no brainer. I said, if you want the future of the UN to be impartial, inclusive, it must rely on the its own AI system. It cannot use Alibaba, Microsoft, Google, or whoever else, because then they will think through the brain of one company, of one country. And I, frankly speaking, I’m shocked how little countries react to that. Therefore, the idea developed from the platform Zoom for the UN, which we discussed in Malta, to now the question, what are we going to use? What type of AI are we going to use at the UN? And frankly speaking, the UN faces many crises, reaction to the Ukraine war, to the Gaza war, but this will be a fundamental crisis, because it will hit the core principle of the UN of impartiality. And Geneva has to make, and Switzerland, some sort of fast move forward, and to set the initiative, and we are discussing with a few countries in the Gulf, and there may be something through General Assembly, but for me, this is existential risk for the UN. You can see the explanation why it is the case.

Kasmira Jefford:
I know there are a few more questions, but perhaps I could suggest that you find the panelists after to follow up with them, since it’s now a half an hour over time. And so I’d like to give a special thanks to our panelists. Thank you very much.