IGF Daily Summary for

Wednesday, 11 October 2023

Dear reader, 

The third day always brings a peak in the IGF dynamics, as happened yesterday in Kyoto. The buzz in the corridors, bilateral meetings, and tens of workshops bring into focus the small and large ‘elephants in the room’. One of these was the future of the IGF in the context of the fast-changing AI and digital governance landscape. 

What will the future role of the IGF be? Can the IGF fulfil the demand for more robust AI governance? What will the position of the IGF be in the context of the architecture proposed by the Global Digital Compact, to be adopted in 2024?

These and other questions were addressed in two sessions yesterday. Formally speaking, decisions about the future of the IGF will most likely happen in 2025. The main policy dilemma will be about the role of the IGF in the context of the Global Digital Compact, which will be adopted in 2024. 

While governance frameworks featured prominently in the debates, a few IGF discussions dived deeper into the specificities of AI governance. 

Yesterday’s sessions provided intriguing reflections and insights on cybersecurity, digital and the environment, human rights online, disinformation, and much more, as you can read below.

You can also read how we did our reporting from IGF2023. Next week, Diplo’s AI and Team of Experts will provide an overall report with the gist of our debates and many useful (and interesting)l statistics. 

Stay tuned!

The Digital Watch team

Do you like what you’re reading? Bookmark us at https://wp.dig.watch/igf2023 and tweet us @DigWatchWorld

Have you heard something new during the discussions, but we’ve missed it? Send us your suggestions at digitalwatch@diplomacy.edu

---

Highlights from yesterday’s sessions

The day’s top picks

• The future of the IGF
• Ethical principles for the use of AI in cybersecurity
• Inclusion (every kind of inclusion)

Digital Governance Processes

What is the future of the IGF? 

It could be a counter-intuitive question given the success of IGF2023 in Kyoto. But, continuous revisiting of the purpose of IGF is built into its fundaments. The next review of the future of the IGF will most likely happen in 2025 on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) when the decision to establish the IGF was made.

In this context, over the last few days in Kyoto, the future of the IGF has featured highly in corridors, bilateral meetings, and yesterday’s sessions. One of the main questions has been what will be the future position of the IGF in the context of the Global Digital Compact (GDC), to be adopted during the Summit of the Future in September 2024. For instance, what will be the role of the IGF if the GDC establishes a Digital Cooperation Forum as suggested in the UN Secretary-General’s policy brief? 

Debates in Kyoto reflected the view that fast developments, especially in the realm of AI, require more robust AI and digital governance. Many in the IGF community argue for a prominent role for the IGF in the emerging governance architecture. For example, the IGF Leadership Panel believes that it is the IGF that should participate in overviewing the implementation of the GDC. Creating a new forum would incur significant costs in finances, time, and effort. There is also a view that the IGF should be refined, improved and adapted to the rapidly changing landscape of AI and broader digital developments in order to, among other things, involve missing communities in current IGF debates. This view is supported by the IGF’s capacity to change and evolve, as has happened since its inception in 2006. 

The Digital Watch and Diplo will follow the debate on the future of the IGF in the context of the GDC negotiations and the WSIS+20 Review Process.

---

AI

AI and governance

AI will be a critical segment of the emerging digital governance architecture. In the Evolving AI, evolving governance: From principles to action session, we learned that we could benefit from two things. First, we need a balanced mix of voluntary standards and legal frameworks for AI. It’s not about just treating AI as a tool, but regulating it based on its real-world use. Second, we need a bottom-up approach to global AI governance, integrating input from diverse stakeholders and factoring in geopolitical contexts. IEEE and its 400,000 members were applauded for their bottom-up engagement with regulatory bodies to develop socio-technical standards beyond technology specifications. The UK’s Online Safety Bill, complemented by an IEEE standard on age-appropriate design, is one encouraging example.

The open forum discussed one international initiative specifically – the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI). The GPAI operates via a multi-tiered governance structure, ensuring decisions are made collectively, through a spectrum of perspectives. It currently boasts 29 member states, and others like Peru and Slovenia are looking to join. At the end of the year, India will be taking over the GPAI chair from Japan and plans to focus on bridging the gender gap in AI. It’s all about inclusion, from gender and linguistic diversity to educational programmes to teach AI-related skills. 

AI and cybersecurity

AI could introduce more uncertainty into the security landscape. For instance, malicious actors might use AI to facilitate more convincing social engineering attacks, like spear-phishing, which can deceive even vigilant users. AI is making it easier to make bioweapons and propagate autonomous weapons, raising concerns about modern warfare. National security strategies might shift towards preemptive strikes, as commanders fear that failure to strike the right balance between ethical criteria and a swift military response could put them at a disadvantage in combat. 

On the flip side, AI can play a role in safeguarding critical infrastructure and sensitive data. AI has proven to be a valuable tool in preventing, detecting, and responding to child safety issues, by assisting in age verification and disrupting suspicious behaviours and patterns that may indicate child exploitation. AI could be a game-changer in reducing harm to civilians during conflicts: It could reduce the likelihood of civilian hits by identifying and directing target strikes more accurately, thus enhancing precision and protecting humanitarian elements in military operations. One of yesterday’s sessions, Ethical principles for the use of AI in cybersecurity, highlighted the need for robust ethical and regulatory guidelines in the development and deployment of AI systems in the cybersecurity domain. Transparency, safety, human control, privacy, and defence against cyberattacks were identified as key ethical principles in AI cybersecurity. The session also argued that existing national cybercriminal legislation could cover attacks using AI without requiring AI-specific regulation.

The question going forward is: Do we need separate AI guidelines specifically designed for the military? The workshop on AI and Emerging and Disruptive Technologies in warfare called for the development of a comprehensive global ethical framework led by the UN. Currently, different nations have their own frameworks for the ethical use of AI in defence, but the need for a unified approach and compliance through intergovernmental processes persists.

The military context often presents unique challenges and ethical dilemmas, and the first attempts at guidelines for the military are those from the RE-AIM Summit and the UN Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons.

---

Cybersecurity

Global negotiations for a UN cybercrime convention

Instruments and tools to combat cybercrime were high on the agenda of discussions. The negotiations about the possible UN cybercrime convention in the Ad Hoc Committee (AHC) are nearing the end, yet many open issues remain. While the mandate is clearly limited to cybercrime (broader mandate proposals, like the regulation of ISPs, were removed from the text), there is a need to precisely define the scope of the treaty. There is no commonly agreed-upon definition of cybercrime yet, and a focus on well-defined crimes that are universally understood across jurisdictions might be needed. 

There are calls to distinguish between cyber-dependent (dependent upon some cyber element for its execution) serious crime like autonomous cyberweapon terrorist attacks and cyber-enabled (actions traditionally carried out in other environments, but now possible with the use of computer as well) actions like online speech which may hurt human rights., The treaty should also address safe havens for cybercriminals, since certain countries turn a blind eye to cybercrime within their borders — due to their limited capacity to combat it, or political or other incentives to ignore it.

Another major stumbling stone of the negotiations is how to introduce clear safeguards for human rights and privacy. Concerns are present over the potential misuse of the provision related to online content by authoritarian countries to prosecute activists, journalists, and political opponents. Yet the mere decision-making process for adopting the convention – which requires unanimous consensus, or, alternatively, a two-thirds majority vote – makes it unlikely that any provision curtailing human rights will be included in the final text.

The current draft includes explicit references to human rights and thus goes far beyond existing crime treaties (e.g. UNCTAD and UNCAC). A highly regarded example of an instrument that safeguards human rights is the Cybercrime Convention (known as the Budapest Convention) of the Council of Europe, which requires parties to uphold the principles of the rule of law and human rights; in practice, judicial authorities effectively oversee the work of the law enforcement authorities (LEA).

One possible safeguard to mitigate the risks of misuse of the convention is the principle of dual criminality, which is crucial for evidence sharing and cooperation in serious crimes. The requirement of dual criminality for electronic evidence sharing is still under discussion in the AHC.

Other concerns related to the negotiations on the new cybercrime convention include the information-sharing provisions (whether voluntary or compulsory), how chapters in the convention will interact with each other, and how the agreed text will manage to overcome jurisdictional challenges to avoid conflicting interpretations of the treaty. Discussions about the means and timing of information sharing about cybersecurity vulnerabilities, as well as reporting and disclosure, are ongoing.

A more robust capacity-building chapter and provisions for technical assistance are needed, apparently. Among other things, those provisions should enable collaborative capacities across jurisdictions and relationships with law enforcement agencies. The capacity-building initiative of the Council of Europe under the Budapest Convention can serve as an example (e.g. training in cybercrime for judges).

The process of drafting the convention benefited from the deep involvement of expert organisations like the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the private sector, and civil society. It is widely accepted that strong cooperation among stakeholders is needed to combat cybercrime. 

The current draft introduces certain challenges for the private sector. Takedown demands as well as placing the responsibility for defining and enforcing rules on freedom of speech on companies, generate controversy and debate within the private sector: Putting companies in an undefined space confronts them with jurisdictional issues and conflicts of law. Inconsistencies in approaches across jurisdictions and broad expectations regarding data disclosure without clear safeguards pose particular challenges; clear limitations on data access obligations are also essential.

What comes next for the negotiations? The new draft of the convention is expected to be published in mid-November, and one final negotiation session is ahead in 2024. After deliberations and approval by the AHC (by consensus or two-thirds voting), the text of the convention will need to be adopted by the UN General Assembly and opened for ratification. For the treaty to be effective, accession by most, if not all, countries is necessary. 

The success or failure of the convention depends on the usefulness of the procedural provisions in the convention text (particularly those relating to investigation, which are currently well-developed) and the number of states that ratify the treaty. Importantly, the success of the treaty implementation is also conditioned that it doesn’t impede existing functioning systems, such as the Budapest Convention, which has been ratified by 68 countries worldwide. An extended effect of a treaty would be the support given to cybercrime efforts by UN member states in passing related national bills. 

Digital evidence for investigating war crimes

A related debate developed around cyber-enabled war crimes, due to the recent decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor to investigate such cases. The Budapest Convention applies to any crime involving digital evidence, including war crimes (in particular Article 14 on war crime investigations, Article 18 on the acquisition of evidence from any service provider, and Article 26 on the sharing of information among law enforcement authorities). 

Of particular relevance is the development of tools and support to capture digital evidence, which could aid in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes. Some tech companies have partnered with the ICC to create a platform that serves as an objective system for creating a digital chain of custody and a tamper-proof record of evidence, which is critical for ensuring neutrality and preserving the integrity of digital evidence. The private sector also plays a role in collecting evidence: There are reports from multiple technology companies providing evidence of malicious cyber activities during conflicts. The Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention offers a legal basis for disclosing domain name registration information and direct cooperation with service providers. At the same time, Article 32 of the Budapest Convention addresses the issue of cross-border access to data, but this access is only available to state parties.

Other significant sources of evidence are investigative journalism and open source intelligence (OSINT) – like the Bellingcat organisation – which uncover war crimes and gross human rights violations using new tools, such as the latest high-resolution satellite imagery. OSINT should be considered an integral part of the overall chain of evidence in criminal investigations, yet such sources should be integrated within a comprehensive legal framework. Article 32 of the Budapest Convention, for example, is already a powerful tool for member states to access OSINT from both public and private domains, with consent. Investigative journalism plays a role in combating disinformation and holding those responsible for war crimes accountable.

Yet, the credibility and authenticity of such sources’ evidence can be questioned. Technological advancements, such as AI, have enabled individuals, states, and regimes to easily manipulate electronic data and develop deepfakes and disinformation. When prosecuting cybercrime, it is imperative that evidence be reliable, authentic, complete, and believable. Related data must be preserved, securely guarded, protected, authenticated, verified, and available for review to ensure its admissibility in trials. The cooperation of state authorities could lead to the development of methodologies for verifying digital evidence (e.g. the work of the Global Legal Action Network).

---

Human rights

Uniting for human rights

‘As the kinetic physical world in which we exist recedes and the digital world in which we increasingly live and work takes up more space in our lives, we must begin thinking about how that digital existence should evolve.’ This quotation, published in a background paper to the session on Internet Human Rights: Mapping the UDHR to cyberspace, succinctly captures one of the central issues of our age. 

The world today is witnessing a concerning trend of increasing division and isolationism among nations. Ironically, global cooperation and governance, the very reasons for IGF 2023, are precisely what we need to promote and safeguard human rights. 

At the heart of yesterday’s main session on Upholding human rights in the digital age was the recognition that human rights should serve as an ethical compass in all aspects of internet governance and the design of digital technologies. But this won’t happen on its own: We need collective commitment to ensure that human rights are at the forefront of the evolving digital landscape, and we need to be deliberate and considerate in shaping the rules and norms that govern it.

The Global Digital Compact framework could promote human rights as an ethical compass by providing a structured and collaborative platform for stakeholders to align their efforts towards upholding human rights in the digital realm. 

The IGF also plays a crucial role in prioritising human rights in the digital age by providing a platform for diverse perspectives, grounding AI governance in human rights, addressing issues of digital inclusion, and actively engaging with challenges like censorship and internet resilience.

Capitalist surveillance

In an era dominated by technological advancements, the presence of surveillance in our daily lives is pervasive, particularly in public spaces. Driven by a need for heightened security measures, governments have increasingly deployed sophisticated technologies, such as facial recognition systems. 

As yesterday’s discussion on private surveillance showed, citizens also contribute to our intricate web of interconnected surveillance networks: Who can blame the neighbours if they want to monitor their street to keep it safe from criminal activity? After all, surveillance technologies are affordable and accessible. And that’s the thing: A parallel development that’s been quietly unfolding is the proliferation of private surveillance tools in public spaces. 

These developments require a critical examination of their impact on privacy and civil liberties, and on issues related to consent, data security, and the potential for misuse. Most of us are aware of these issues, but the involvement of private companies in surveillance introduces a new layer of complexity. 

Unlike government agencies, private companies are often not subject to the same regulations and transparency requirements. This can lead to a lack of oversight and transparency regarding how data is collected, stored, and used. 

Additionally, the potential for profit-driven motives may incentivise companies to push the boundaries of surveillance practices, potentially infringing on individuals’ privacy rights. It’s not like we haven’t seen this before.

Ensuring ethical data practices

The exploitation of personal data without consent is ubiquitous. Experts in the session Decolonise digital rights: For a globally inclusive future drew parallels to colonial practices, highlighting how data is used to control and profit. This issue is not only a matter of privacy but also an issue of social justice and rights. 

When it comes to children, privacy is not just about keeping data secure and confidential but also about questioning the need for collecting and storing their data in the first place. This means that the best way to check whether a user accessing an online service is underaged is to use pseudonymous credentials and pseudonymised data. Given the wave of new legislation requiring more stringent age verification measures, there’s no doubt that we will be discussing this issue much more in the coming weeks and months. 

Civil society is perhaps best placed to hold companies accountable for their data protection measures and governments in check for their efforts in keeping children safe. Yet, we sometimes forget to involve the children themselves in shaping policies related to data governance and their digital lives. 

Hence, the suggestion of involving children in activities such as data subject access requests. This can help them comprehend the implications of data processing. It can also empower them to participate in decision-making processes and contribute to ensuring ethical and responsible data practices. After all, the experts argue, many children’s level of awareness and concern about their privacy is comparable to that of adults.

---

Development

Digital technologies and the environment

The pandemic clearly showed the intricate connection between digital technologies and the environment. Although lower use of gasoline-powered vehicles led to a decrease in CO2 emissions during lockdowns, isolating also triggered a substantial increase in internet use due to remote work and online activities, giving rise to concerns about heightened carbon emissions from increased online and digital activities. 

Data doesn’t lie, (statisticians do) and data has confirmed the dual impact of digital technologies: While these technologies contribute 1% to 5% of greenhouse gas emissions and consume 5% to 10% of global energy, they also have the potential to cut emissions by 20% by 2030.

To harness the potential benefits of digitalisation and minimise its environmental footprint, we need to raise awareness about what sustainable sources we have available and establish standards for their use.

While progress is being made, there’s a pressing need for consistent international standards that consider environmental factors for digital resources. Initiatives from organisations such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in setting technology standards and promoting ethical practices, particularly in relation to AI and its environmental impact, as well as collaborations between organisations like GIZ, the World Bank, and ITU in developing standards for green data centres, highlight how working together globally is crucial for sustainable practices. 

Currently, over 90% of global enterprises are small or medium-sized, contributing over 50% of the world’s GDP, yet they lack the necessary frameworks to measure their carbon footprint, which is a key step in enabling their participation in the carbon economy in a real and verifiable way. 

Inclusion of people with disabilities

There’s no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to meeting the needs of people with disabilities (PWD) in the digital space. First of all, the perduring slogan, ‘nothing about us without us’ must be respected. Accessibility by design standards like Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2 are easily available through the W3C Accessibility Standards Overview. Although accessibility accommodations require tailored approaches to address the specific needs of both groups and individuals, standards offer a solid foundation to start with. 

The inclusion of people with disabilities should extend beyond technical accessibility to include the content, functionality, and social aspects of digital platforms.The stigma PWD face in online spaces needs to be addressed by implementing policies that create a safe and inclusive online environment. 

Importantly, we must take advantage of the internet governance ecosystem to ensure that

• We support substantial representation from the disability community in internet governance discussions, beyond discussions on disabilities.
• We stress the importance of making digital platforms accessible to everyone, no matter their abilities or disabilities, using technology and human empowerment.
• We provide awareness-raising workshops for those unaware of the physical, mental, and cognitive challenges others might be facing, including those of us who suffer from one disability without understanding what others are facing.
• We provide skills and training to effectively use available accommodations to overcome our challenges and disabilities.
• We make available training and educational opportunities for persons with disabilities to be involved in the policymaking processes that involve us, making the internet and digital world better for everyone with the resulting improvements.
• We support research to continue the valuable scientific improvements made possible by emerging technologies and digital opportunities.

---

Sociocultural

The public interest and the internet 

The internet is widely regarded as a public good with a multitude of benefits. Its potential to empower communities by enabling communication, information sharing, and access to valuable resources was appreciated. However, while community-driven innovation coexists with corporate platforms, the digital landscape is primarily dominated by private, for-profit giants like Meta and X. 

This dominance is concerning, particularly because it risks exacerbating pre-existing wealth and knowledge disparities, compromises privacy, and fosters the proliferation of misinformation.

This duality in the internet’s role demonstrates its ability to both facilitate globalisation and centralise control, possibly undermining its democratic essence. The challenge is even greater when considering that efforts to create a public good internet often lack inclusivity, limiting the diversity of voices and perspectives in shaping the internet. Furthermore, digital regulations tend to focus on big tech companies, often overlooking the diverse landscape of internet services. 

To foster a public good internet and democratise access, there is a need to prioritise sustainable models that serve the public interest. This requires a strong emphasis on co-creation and community engagement. This effort will necessitate not only tailoring rules for both big tech and small startup companies but also substantial investments in initiatives that address the digital divide and promote digital literacy, particularly among young men and women in grassroots communities, all while preserving cultural diversity. Additionally, communities should have agency in determining their level of interaction with the internet. This includes enabling certain communities to meaningfully use the internet according to their needs and preferences.

Disinformation and democratic processes 

In the realm of disinformation, we are witnessing new dynamics, with an expanded cast of individuals and group actors responsible for misleading the public, with the increasing involvement of politics and politicians. 

Addressing misinformation in this fast-paced digital era is surely challenging, but not impossible. For instance, Switzerland’s resilient multi-party system was cited to illustrate how it can resist the sway of disinformation in elections. And while solutions can be found to limit the spread of mis- and dis-information online, they need to be put in place with due consideration to issues such as freedom of expression and proportionality. The Digital Services Act (DSA) – adopted in the EU – is taking this approach, although concerns were voiced about its complexity.

A UN Code of Conduct for information integrity on digital platforms could contribute to ensuring a more inclusive and safe digital space, contributing to the overall efforts against harmful online content. However, questions arose about its practical implementation and the potential impacts on freedom of expression and privacy due to the absence of shared definitions.

Recognising the complexity of entirely eradicating disinformation, some argued for a more pragmatic approach, focusing on curbing its dissemination and minimising the harm caused, rather than seeking complete elimination. A multifaceted approach that goes beyond digital platforms and involves fact-checking initiatives and nuanced regulations was recommended. Equally vital are efforts in education and media literacy, alongside the collection of empirical evidence on a global scale, to gain a deeper understanding of the issue.

---

Infrastructure

Fragmented consensus

Yesterday’s discussions on internet fragmentation built on those of the previous days. Delving into diverse perspectives on how to prevent the fragmentation of the internet is inherently valuable. But when there’s an obvious lack of consensus on even the most fundamental principles, it underlines just how critical the debate is.

For instance, should we focus mostly on the technical aspects, or should we also consider content-related fragmentation – and which of these are the most pressing to address? If misguided political decisions pose an immediate threat, should policymakers take a backseat on matters directly impacting the internet’s infrastructure?

Pearls of wisdom shared by experts in both workshops – Scramble for internet: You snooze, you lose and Internet fragmentation: Perspectives & collaboration – offer a promising bridge to close this gap in strategy.

One of these insights emphasised the need to distinguish content limitations from internet fragmentation. Content restrictions, like parental controls or constraints on specific types of content, primarily pertain to the user experience rather than the actual fragmentation of the internet. Labelling content-level limitations as internet fragmentation could be misleading and potentially detrimental. Such a misinterpretation might catalyse a self-fulfilling prophecy of a genuinely fragmented internet.

Another revolved around the role of governments, in some ways overlapping with content concerns. There’s apprehension that politicians might opt to establish alternate namespaces or a second internet root, thereby eroding its singularity and coherence. If political interests start shaping the internet’s architecture, it could culminate in fragmentation and potentially impede global connectivity. And yet, governments have been (and still are) essential in establishing obligatory rules affecting online behaviour when other voluntary measures proved insufficient. 

A third referred to the elusive nature of the concept of sovereignty. Although a state holds the right to establish its own rules, should this extend to something inherently global like the internet? The question of sovereignty in the digital age, especially in the context of internet fragmentation, prompts us to reevaluate our traditional understanding of state authority in a world where boundaries are increasingly blurred by the whirlwinds of silt raised as governments search for survey markers in the digital realm.

---

Economic

Tax rules and economic challenges for the Global South

Over the years, the growth of the digital economy – and how to tax it – led to major concerns over the adequacy of tax rules. In 2021, over 130 countries came together to support the OECD’s new two-pillar solution. In parallel, the UN Tax Committee revised its UN Model Convention to include a new article on taxing income from digital services.

Despite significant improvements in tax rules, developing countries feel that these measures alone are insufficient to ensure tax justice for the Global South. First, these models are based on the principle that taxes are paid where profits are generated. This principle does not consider the fact that many multinational corporations shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions, depriving countries in the Global South of their fair share of tax revenue. Second, the two frameworks do not address the issue of tax havens directly, which are often located in the Global North. Third, the OECD and UN models do not take into account the power dynamics between countries in the Global North (which has historically been in the lead in international tax policymaking) and the Global South. 

Yesterday’s workshop on Taxing Tech Titans: Policy options for the Global South discussed policy options accessible to developing countries. 

Countries in the Global South have adopted various strategies to tax digital services, including the introduction of digital services taxes (DSTs) that target income from digital services. That’s not to say that they’ve all been effective: Uganda’s experience with taxing digital services, for instance, had unintended negative consequences. In addition, unilateral measures without a global consensus-based solution can lead to trade conflicts.

So what would the experts advise their countries to do? Despite the OECD’s recent efforts to accommodate the interests of developing nations, experts from the Global South remain cautious: ‘Wait and see, and sign up later’ a concluding remark suggested.

Diplo/GIP at the IGF

Reporting from the IGF: AI and human expertise combined

We’ve been hard at work following the IGF and providing just-in-time reports and analyses. This year, we leveraged both human expertise and DiploAI in a hybrid approach that consists of several stages:

1. Online real-time recording of IGF sessions. Initially, our recording team set up an online recording system that captured all sessions at the IGF. 
2. Uploading recordings for transcription. Once these virtual sessions were recorded, they were uploaded to our transcribing application, serving as the raw material for our transcription team, which helped the AI application split transcripts by speaker. Identifying which speaker made which contribution is essential for analysing the multitude of perspectives presented at the forum – from government bodies to civil society organisations. This granularity enabled more nuanced interpretation during the analysis phase.
3. AI-generated IGF reports. With the speaker-specific transcripts in hand (or on-screen), we utilised advanced AI algorithms to generate preliminary reports. These AI-driven reports identified key arguments, topics, and emerging trends in discussions. To provide a multi-dimensional view, we created comprehensive knowledge graphs for each session as well as for individual speakers. These graphical representations intricately mapped the connections between speakers’ arguments and the corresponding topics, serving as an invaluable tool for analysis (see the knowledge graph from Day 1 at IGF2023)

4. Writing dailies. To conclude the reporting process, our team of analysts used AI-generated reports to craft comprehensive daily analyses. 

You can see the results of that approach on our dedicated page.

IGF Daily Summary for

Tuesday, 10 October 2023

Dear reader, 

On Day 2, the IGF got into full swing with intense debates in conference rooms and invigorating buzz in the corridors. The inspiring local flavours permeated the debate on the impact of digitalisation on the treasured Japanese manga culture and Jovan Kurbalija’s parallels between the Kyoto School of Philosophy and AI governance.

After the formalities and protocol of the first day, the level of usual ‘language’ decreased, and new insights and controversies increased. AI remains a prominent topic, with much more clarity in the debate. While the familiar AI lingo continues, it was refreshing to see increased clarity in thinking about AI away from the prevailing hype and fear-mongering in the media space.

The quality of debate was increased by viewing AI from various perspectives, from technology and standardisation to human rights and cybersecurity. While acknowledging the reality of different interests and powers, the debate on AI brought the often-missing insight that all countries face similar challenges in governing AI. For this reason, focusing on human-centred AI may help reduce geopolitical tensions in this field.

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) triggered intense and constructive debate. While there is overwhelming support for the GDC as the next step in developing inclusive digital governance, the focus on details is increasing, including the role of the IGF in implementing the GDC and preserving the delicate balance between the multilateral negotiations of the GDC and multistakeholder participation. This year, the IGF also intensified academic debate with policy implications on the difference between internet and ‘digital’. 

Further down in this summary, you can find more on, among other things, internet fragmentation, cybersecurity, content moderation, and digital development. 

You can also read more on an exciting initiative using AI to preserve the rich knowledge that the IGF has generated since its first edition in Athens in 2006.

We wish you inspiring discussions and interesting exchanges on the third day of the IGF in Kyoto!

The Digital Watch Team

Do you like what you’re reading? Bookmark us at https://wp.dig.watch/igf2023 and tweet us @DigWatchWorld

Have you heard something new during the discussions, but we’ve missed it? Send us your suggestions at digitalwatch@diplomacy.edu

---

The highlights of the discussions

The day’s top picks

• AI: Increasing clarity in debates
• Japan: Manga, Kyoto philosophers and digital governance
• The GDC: Overall support and discovering the ‘devils in the details’
• The IGF itself: Using AI to preserve the rich knowledge treasure of the IGF

Artificial Intelligence

Refreshing clarity in AI debates

We want AI, but what does that mean? Today’s main session brought refreshing clarity to the discussion on the impact of AI on society. It moved from the cliche of AI ‘providing opportunities while triggering threats’ to providing more substantial insights. The spirit of this debate starkly contrasted to the rather alarming hype about existential human threats that AI has triggered.

AI was compared to electricity, with the suggestion that AI is becoming similarly pervasive and requires global standards and regulations to ensure its responsible implementation. The discussion recognised AI as a critical infrastructure. 

A trendy analogy comparing AI governance to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was criticised as containing more differences than similarities between AI and nuclear energy.

While we wait for new international regulations to be developed, a wide range of actors could adopt voluntary standards for AI. For instance, UNICEF uses a value-based design approach developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

The private sector in AI governance is both inevitable and indispensable. Therefore, its involvement must be transparent, open, and trustworthy. Currently, this is not the case. However, the representative of OpenAI noted the recent launch of the Red Teaming Network as an industry attempt to be more open and inclusive. Other examples are the LEGO Group’s implementation of measures to protect children in their online and virtual environments and the UK Children’s Act.

Calls were made for national and regional attempts to advance local-context AI governance, as in Mauritius, Kenya and Egypt, which are taking steps towards national policies. In Latin America, challenges also arise from unique regional contexts, global power dynamics, and the intangible nature of AI. 

AI and human rights 

Children’s safety and rights were the focus of a workshop organised by UNICEF. AI has already entered classrooms, but without clearly defined criteria for responsible integration. It is already clear that there are benefits: The innovative use of AI for bridging cultural gaps heralds a new era of global connectedness, and it can support fair assessments. Going beyond, according to Honda, its HARU robot can provide emotional support to vulnerable children or AI can fill a gap in a severely under-resourced mental healthcare system, such as in Nigeria, where an ‘Autism VR’ project is increasing awareness, promoting inclusion and supporting neurodiverse children. 

However, a note of caution was also sounded: the future of education lies in harnessing technology’s potential while championing inclusivity, fairness, and global collaboration. Some solutions are: integrating educators in the research process, adopting a participatory action approach, involving children from various cultural and economic backgrounds, and recognising global disparities given that AI datasets are insufficiently capturing the experiences of children from the Global South.

Human rights approaches carried weight today, echoing in the workshop on a Global human rights approach to responsible AI governance. The discussion highlighted the ‘Brussels effect,’ wherein EU regulations became influential worldwide. Countries with more robust regulatory frameworks tend to shape AI governance practices globally, emphasising the implications of rules beyond national borders. In contrast, as some observers noted, in Latin America, the regional history of weak democratic systems generated a general mistrust towards participation in global processes, hindering the continent’s engagement in AI governance. Yet, Latin America provides raw materials, resources, data, and labour for AI development while the tech industry aggressively pushes for regional AI deployment in spite of human rights violations. The same can be said for Africa. 

To address these challenges, it is necessary to strengthen democratic institutions and reduce regional asymmetries, keeping in mind that human rights should represent the voice of the majority. To ensure an inclusive and fair AI governance process, reducing regional disparities, strengthening democratic institutions, and promoting transparency and capacity development are essential. 

AI and standardisation

It appears that regional disparities plague standardisation efforts as well. Standardisation is indispensable for linkages between technology developers, policy professionals and users. Yet, as the workshop Searching for standards: The global competition to govern AI noted, silos remain problematic, isolating developers and policymakers or providers and users of the technology. The dominance of advanced economies as providers of AI tech, heavily guarding intellectual property rights, and early standard-setting has led to situations where harms are predominately framed through a lens in the Global North, at the cost of impacts on users, usually in the Global South. 

As a potential way of opening the early standard-setting game, open-source AI models support developing countries by offering immediate opportunities for local development and involvement in the evolving ecosystem. There is, however, a need for technical standards for AI content, with watermarking proposed as a potential standard. 

AI and cybersecurity

The use of AI in cybersecurity provides numerous opportunities, as noted during the workshop on AI-driven cyber defence: Empowering developing nations. The discussion centred on the positive role of AI in cybersecurity, emphasising its potential to enhance protection rather than pose threats. One example is AI’s effectiveness in identifying fake accounts and inauthentic behaviour.  

Collaboration and open innovation were emphasised as critical factors for AI cybersecurity. Keeping AI accessible to experts in other areas helps prevent misuse, and policymakers should incentivise open innovation. 

Unlocking the IGF’s knowledge using AI

Yesterday, Diplo and the GIP supported the IGF Secretariat in organising a side session, where how to unlock IGF’s knowledge to gain AI-driven insights for our digital future was discussed. The immense amount of data accumulated through the IGF over 18 years – which is a public good that belongs to all stakeholders – presents an opportunity for valuable insights when mined and analysed effectively, with AI applications serving as useful tools in this process. This way, this wealth of knowledge can be more effectively utilised to contribute to the SDGs.

AI can enhance human capabilities to assist the IGF mission. AI has the capability to generate interactive reports from sessions (as it does at IGF2023), with detailed breakdowns by speaker and topic, narrative summaries, and discussion points. Such a tool can codify and translate the arguments presented during sessions, identify and label key topics, and develop a comprehensive knowledge graph. It can connect and compare discussions across different IGF sessions, identify commonalities, link related topics, and facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, as well as associate relevant SDGs with the discussions. 

AI can mitigate the challenge of the crowded schedule of IGF sessions, by establishing links to similar discussions and sessions from past years, which enables better coordination and consolidation of related themes over the course of years and meetings. Ultimately, AI can help us visualise hours of discussions and thousands of pages of discussion in the format of a knowledge graph, as done in Diplo’s experiment with daily debates at this year’s IGF (see below).

AI can increase the effectiveness of disseminating and utilising the knowledge generated by the IGF. It can also help identify underrepresented and marginalised groups and disciplines in the IGF processes, allowing the IGF to increase its focus on involving them. 

Importantly, preserving the IGF’s knowledge and modus operandi can show the relevance and power of respectful engagement with different opinions and views. Since this approach is not a ‘given’ in our time, the IGF’s contribution could be much broader, far beyond the focus on internet governance per se.

Digital governance processes

GDC in the spotlight

While it may look like AI is the one and only most popular topic at this year’s IGF, there is at least one more thing on many participants’ minds: the much anticipated Global Digital Compact (GDC). It’s no surprise, then, that a main session was dedicated to it. If this is the first time you are reading about the GDC (we strongly doubt it), we invite you to familiarise yourself with it on this process page before moving on. 

If you know what the GDC is, then you most likely also know that one sour point in discussions so far has concerned the process itself: While the GDC is expected to be an outcome of the multilateral 2024 Summit of the Future, many state and non-state actors argue that there should be multistakeholder engagement throughout the GDC development process. But, as highlighted during yesterday’s main session, balancing multilateral processes and multistakeholder engagement is indeed a challenge. How to address this challenge seems to remain unclear, but for the time being, stakeholders are encouraged to engage with their member states to generate greater involvement. 

And speaking of multistakeholderism, one expectation (or rather a wish) that some actors have for the GDC is that it will recognise, reinforce, and support the multistakeholder model of internet governance. Another expectation is that the GDC will establish clear linkages with existing processes while avoiding duplication of efforts and competition for resources. For instance, it was said during the session that the IGF itself should have a role in implementing the GDC principles and commitments and in the overall GDC follow-up process. 

Beyond issues of process and focus, one particularly interesting debate has picked up momentum within the GDC process: whether and to what extent internet governance and digital governance/digital cooperation are distinct issues. Right now, there are arguments on both sides of the debate. Please contribute your views to the survey on the internet vs. digital debate.

Multistakeholder voices in cyber diplomacy                                               

The IGF is, by nature, a multistakeholder space, but many other digital governance spaces struggle with how to define stakeholder engagement. This was highlighted in the session Stronger together: Multistakeholder voices in cyber diplomacy, where many participants called for enhanced stakeholder participation in policy-making and decision-making processes related, in particular, to cybersecurity, cybercrime, and international commerce negotiations.

The non-governmental stakeholders’ perspective is essential for impactful outcomes, transparency, and credibility. The absence of their input not only results in the loss of valuable perspectives and expertise, but also undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of the policies and decisions made. Moreover, collaboration between state and non-state stakeholders can also be seen as mutually beneficial. Multistakeholder involvement could aid governments in the gathering of diverse ideas during negotiations and decision-making processes related to digital issues. 

However, as the session on enhancing the participation and cooperation of CSOs in/with multistakeholder IG forums noted, civil society organisations, especially from the Global South, face barriers to entry into global multistakeholder internet governance spaces, and the need for increased capacity building, transparency in policy processes, and spaces that allow for network building and coordination to impactfully engage in global multistakeholder internet governance processes.

One approach to solving the conundrum of multistakeholder engagement in intergovernmental processes was proposed: implementing a policy on stakeholder participation. Such a policy, it was said, would transform stakeholder involvement into an administrative process, ensuring that all perspectives are consistently considered and incorporated into policy-making.

Infrastructure

Turning back the tide on internet fragmentation

The concerned words of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres at the start of the 78th UN General Debate still echo in the minds of many of us. ‘We are inching ever closer to a great fracture in economic and financial systems and trade relations,’ he told world leaders, ‘one that threatens a single, open internet with diverging strategies on technology and AI, and potentially clashing security frameworks.’

Those same concerns were raised within the halls of the IGF yesterday. In one of the workshops, experts tried to foresee the internet in 20 years’ time: The path we’re on today, mired with risks, does not bode well for the internet’s future. In a second workshop, experts looked at the different dimensions of fragmentation – fragmentation of the user experience, that of the internet’s technical layer, and fragmentation of internet governance and coordination (explained in detail in this background paper) – and the consequences they all carry. In a third workshop, experts looked at the technical community’s key role in the evolution of the internet and how they can best help shape the future of the internet.

The way we imagine the future of the internet might vary in detail. Still, the core issue is the same: If we don’t act fast, the currently unified internet will come precariously closer to fragmenting into blocs. 

It could be the beginning of the end of the founding vision of the free, open, and decentralised internet, which shaped its development for decades. We need to get back to the values and principles that shaped the internet in its early days if we are to recover those possibilities. These values and principles underpin the technical functioning of the internet, and ensure that the different parts of the internet are interconnected and interoperable. Protecting the internet’s critical properties is crucial for global connectivity.

As risks increase, we shouldn’t lose sight of the lasting positive aspects either. The internet has been transformational; it has opened the doors for instantaneous communication; its global nature has enabled the free flow of ideas and information and created major opportunities for trade. 

A swift change to the current state of affairs (undoubtedly affecting the online space) is forthcoming, The Economist argued recently. But if we want to be more proactive, there are plenty of spaces that can help us understand and mitigate the risks (one of which is the Global Digital Compact). Perhaps this will also give us the space to renew our optimism in technology and its future.

Debate on ‘fair share’ heats up

Internet traffic has increased exponentially, prompting telecom operators to request that tech companies contribute their fair share to maintain the infrastructure. In Europe, this issue is at the centre of a heated debate. Just a few days ago, 20 CEOs from most of Europe’s largest telecom companies called on lawmakers to introduce new rules. 

Yesterday, one lively discussion during an IGF workshop tackled this very question: whether over-the-top (OTT) service providers (e.g. Netflix, Disney Plus) should contribute to the costs associated with managing and improving the infrastructure. While the debate isn’t new, there were at least two points raised by experts that are worth highlighting:

• Instead of charging network fees, ISPs could partner with OTT providers in profit-sharing agreements. 
• It might be better if governments are left out of this debate. Instead of imposing new regulations, governments could encourage cooperation between companies. This seems to be an approach actively embraced by the Republic of Korea.

Development

Digital and the environment

The hottest summer ever recorded on Earth is behind us: June, July, and August 2023 were the hottest three months ever documented, World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) data shows. The discussion of the overall impact of digital technologies on the environment at the IGF, therefore, came as no surprise.

Internet use comes with a hefty energy bill, even for seemingly small things like sending texts – it gobbles up data and power. In fact, the internet’s carbon footprint amounts to 3.7% of global emissions. The staggering number of devices globally( over 6.2 billion), need frequent charging, contributing to significant energy consumption. Some of these devices also perform demanding computational tasks that require substantial power, further compounding the issue. Moreover, the rapid pace of electronic device advancement and devices’ increasingly shorter lifespans have exacerbated the problem of electronic waste (e-waste).

There are, however, a few things we can do. For instance, we can use satellites and high-altitude connectivity devices to make the internet more sustainable. We can take the internet to far-off places using renewable energy sources, like solar power. And crucially, if we craft and implement policies right from the inception of technology, we can create awareness among start-up stakeholders about its carbon footprint. We can also leverage AI to optimise electrical supply and demand and reduce energy waste and greenhouse gas emissions, which together, might even generate more reliable and optimistic projections of climate change.

Broadband from space

The latest data from ITU shows that approximately 5.4 billion people are using the internet. That leaves 2.6 billion people offline and still in need of access. One of the ways to bring more people online is by using Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites – think Starlink – to provide high-speed, low-latency internet connectivity. Another important element here are libraries, which often incorporate robotics, 3D printing, and Starlink connections, enabling individuals to engage with cutting-edge innovations.

There are, however, areas of concern regarding LEO satellites. It could be (is) technically challenging to launch LEO satellites on a large scale. Their environmental impact, both during their launch and eventual disposal in the upper atmosphere, is unclear. For some communities, the cost of using such services might be too high. Additionally, satellites are said to cause issues for astronomical and scientific observations. 

To fully harness the potential of these technologies, countries must re-evaluate and update their domestic regulations related to licensing and authorising satellite broadband services. Additionally, countries must be aware of international space law and its implications to make informed decisions. Active participation in international decision-making bodies, such as ITU and the UN Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), is crucial for shaping policies and regulations that support the effective deployment of these technologies. 

By doing so, countries can unlock the benefits of space-based technologies and promote the uninterrupted provision of wireless services on a global scale.

Accessible e-learning for persons with disabilities (PWD)

The accessibility challenges in e-learning platforms pose substantial hardships for people with disabilities, both physical and cognitive. Unfortunately, schools frequently fail to acknowledge or address the difficulties associated with online resource access with the immediacy they need and deserve. Those uninformed about and inexperienced with the obstacles of cognitive impairments often regard these issues as insignificant. This lack of awareness compounds the problem, leaving students with disabilities, especially those with cognitive impairments, to silently wrestle with these issues, a workshop on accessible e-learning experience noted.

Some solutions identified are: 

• Involving users with disabilities in the development process of e-learning platforms
• Integrating inclusion into everyday practice in educational institutions 
• Implementing proactive measures and proper benchmarking and assessment tools to effectively address digital inclusion
• Collaborating globally to make e-learning more accessible

Human rights

Digital threats in conflict zones

With all that’s going on in the Middle East, we can’t help but wonder how digital threats and misinformation are potentially impacting the lives of civilians residing in conflict zones, in a negative way. This issue was tackled in three workshops yesterday – Encryption’s role in safeguarding human rights, Safeguarding the free flow of information amidst conflict, and Current developments in DNS privacy.

In modern conflicts, digital attacks are not limited to traditional military targets. Civilians and civilian infrastructures, such as hospitals, power grids, and communications networks, are also at risk. In addition, with the growing reliance on a shared digital infrastructure, civilian entities are more likely to be inadvertently targeted. The interconnectedness of digital systems means that an attack on one part of the infrastructure can have far-reaching consequences, potentially affecting civilians not directly involved in the conflict.

The blurred lines between civilian and military targets in the digital realm has other far-reaching implications for trust and safety. It affects the credibility of humanitarian organisations, the provision of life-saving services, the psychological well-being of civilians, and their access to essential information.

Experts advocated a multi-faceted approach to address digital threats and misinformation in conflict zones. This included building community resilience, collaborating with stakeholders, enforcing policies, considering legal and ethical implications, and conducting thorough due diligence.

Sociocultural

Multilingualism, cultural diversity, and local content

As in previous years, the discussion on digital inclusion touched on the need to foster multilingualism and access to digital content and tech in native languages. This is particularly challenging in the case of less spoken languages such as Furlan, Sardo, and Arberesh, and these challenges need to be addressed if we want to truly empower individuals and communities to meaningfully engage in and take advantage of the digital world. The Tribal Broadband Connectivity Programme was highlighted as an example of an initiative that works to preserve indigenous languages, thereby adding tribal languages and cultural resources to the internet ecosystem. 

Universal acceptance (UA) was brought up as a way to enable a more inclusive digital space. UA is not only a technical issue (i.e. making sure that domain names and email addresses can be used by (are compatible with) all internet applications, devices, and systems irrespective of script and language), but also one of digital inclusion. It fosters inclusivity and accessibility in the digital realm. And while core technical issues have mostly been resolved, more needs to be done to drive substantive progress on UA. Approaches include more efforts to raise awareness within the technical community about UA readiness, economic incentives (e.g. government preference in public procurement for vendors who demonstrate UA), government support and involvement in the uptake of UA; and policy coordination among different stakeholders.

Multilingualism is not only about accessing content in local languages and in native scripts but also about developing such content. It was noted in a dedicated session that local content creation in minority languages contributes significantly to cultural and linguistic diversity. But challenges remain here as well. 

But in order to create content, users need to be able to access the internet. Yet, digital divides remain a reality, as do the lack of robust infrastructure, affordability issues (e.g. some households can only afford one device, while in many, even this one device is seen as a luxury), and gender inequalities, which prevent many from creating content. In addition, the mismatch between broadband pricing and the spending power of individuals hinders digital inclusion. Continued efforts are required to deploy reliable infrastructure with affordable pricing options.

Nonetheless, there is hope for universal access to the internet in the future. Advancements in technology are gradually making access less expensive with more options, potentially enabling broader internet access. And initiatives such as Starlink and Project Kuiper, which aim to provide connectivity to remote areas via satellites, are helping to bridge the digital divide.

One interesting point in the discussion was that the internet has not evolved into the egalitarian platform initially envisioned for content creation and access to information. Despite the TikTok phenomenon, instead of empowering individuals to become content publishers – it was said – the internet has given rise to powerful intermediaries who aggregate, licence, and distribute content. These intermediaries dominate the industry by delivering uniform content to a global market. And so, challenges remain regarding content distribution and ensuring equal access for all. 
In considering local content contributions, platform and content neutrality should also be considered to ensure a fair and diverse content ecosystem.

Cybersecurity and Digital Safety

The development of offensive cyber capabilities by states, impactful ransomware attacks, and the high risks of sexual abuse and exploitation of minors online, have all raised the profile of cybersecurity and the importance of protecting against new and existing threats, the Main Session on Cybersecurity, Trust & Safety Online noted.

Offensive cyber capabilities and the legitimacy of using force in response to cyberattacks were outlined as important challenges, along with fighting the use of social networks as tools for interventionism, the promotion of hate speech, incitement to violence, destabilisation, and the dissemination of false information and fake news. 

Given the long list and complexity of issues, some feel a legally binding international instrument is needed to complement existing international law and encompass cyberspace adequately. Others underline the need to involve different stakeholders – the technical community, civil society, and companies, including law firms – in shaping any such instrument. The fast pace of tech development is another challenge in this endeavour. The limitations of a comprehensive solution to which we aspire should be acknowledged, and we should prioritise actions that could have the greatest near-future impact for mitigating risks.

Cybercrime negotiations

The debate on a UN treaty to combat cybercrime identified the following challenges: 

• The current draft of the cybercrime treaty aims to extend the power of law enforcement but offers weak safeguards for privacy and human rights; treaty-specific safeguards may be necessary. 
• Geopolitics dominates negotiations, and expert input is often needed (but not available) to understand the reality and shape of current cybercrime policies. 
• Companies must play a crucial role in international cooperation against cybercrime.

Some concrete suggestions to foster increased cooperation and efficiency to combat cybercrime beyond international treaty provisions include the creation of a database of cybersecurity and cybercrime experts for knowledge and information sharing (the efforts of the UN OEWG and the OAS were outlined), developing a pool of existing knowledge to support capacity development for combating cybercrime (not least because policymakers often feel intimidated by technical topics), and focusing on expanding the role of existing organisations such as Interpol. Importantly, states and businesses should become more aware of the economic benefits and potential increase in GDP due to investments in cybersecurity.

International negotiations should also focus more on strengthening systems and networks at a technical level. This includes measures to ensure the development of more secure software, devices, and networks, through security-by-design and security-by-default; providing legal protections for security researchers when identifying vulnerabilities; enhancing education and information sharing; using AI in cybersecurity for identifying vulnerabilities in real-time and other tasks. The risks of emerging technologies have come to the forefront of cybersecurity; however, international discussions should not lose sight of the broader cybersecurity landscape.

Cybersecurity and development

In emerging cybersecurity governance frameworks, developing countries’ specificities should be considered. Taking West Africa as an example, challenges include the lack of national and regional coordination to effectively combat cyber threats; resource limitations on technical, financial, and human fronts; insufficient allocation of resources to the cybersecurity sector; a shortage of qualified personnel in the region; and weak critical infrastructure, which is particularly susceptible to cyber attacks (where frequent power outages and telecommunication disruptions are already commonplace). 

Cybersecurity frameworks developed in such an environment should be based on peer-to-peer cooperation between the states of the region, cooperation, information sharing with the private sector, and local adaptation of global best practices, considering the local context and challenges. Notable initiatives are the Joint Platform for Advancing Cybersecurity in West Africa, launched under the G7 German presidency, which aims to establish an Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC), and the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE) work with the Economic Community of West African State (ECOWAS) to enhance capacities through partnerships.

Legal

The potential of regulatory sandboxes

What happens when you toss traditional regulation into a sandbox and hand innovators a shovel? You get a regulatory playground where creativity flourishes, rules adapt, and the future takes shape one daring experiment at a time. 

The workshop Sandboxes for data governance highlighted the growing interest in this tool for development of new regulatory solutions. Regions like Africa and the Middle East are in the early stages of adopting fintech-related sandboxes; Singapore has gained more experience and has fostered collaboration between industry and regulators. GovTech sandboxes, as seen in Lithuania, have become integral to the regulatory process where (un)controlled environments facilitate the testing and implementation of mature technologies in the government sector.

A common main challenge is the significant resources and time required to implement sandboxes, and how taxing this is for developing countries. It helps to learn from established sandboxes and tailor them to specific contexts. But more than that, collaborative efforts are needed between government authorities, industry players, civil society organisations, and regulatory bodies to make the process work.

The content creation revolution

The tectonic shift in content creation over the past decade has been internet-shaking. Content creation is no longer limited to an elite group of professionals, thanks to the widespread availability of user-friendly and inexpensive tools. Users are now generating vast amounts of unique and dynamic new content and sharing it on social media platforms and wherever the latest trend thrives.

Yesterday’s workshops on intellectual property discussed this shift, and the efforts to support the accessibility and availability of content through digital platforms. One workshop that looked at content creation and access to open information recognised that the industry is adapting to new technological advancements, while the workshop that looked at the manga culture (a cultural treasure of Japan, the host country) examined how the global manga market enjoyed rapid growth during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Both discussions explained how this transformation has its own challenges. The surge in user-generated content has raised important questions about intellectual property rights (IPR) and the ethical consumption of creative output, including the complexities of identifying and thwarting pirate operators, whose elusive tactics threaten creators’ livelihoods. The need for multistakeholder cooperation involving government bodies, internet communities, and industry players to effectively combat this threat goes without saying.

As the discussions unfolded, a common thread emerged: the need for innovation to meet the evolving demands of the digital age. But the discussions also demonstrated that the digital age demands not only legal frameworks and technological fortification but a nuanced understanding of the evolving dynamics between creators and consumers, and the content they develop and consume. 

Diplo/GIP at the IGF

Don’t miss our sessions today! 

Sorina Teleanu will speak at the open forum From IGF to GDC: A new era of global digital governance: A SIDS perspective. The session will examine the challenges developing countries face when engaging in global digital governance processes and explore ways to address such challenges. It will also discuss expectations from the ongoing GDC process and the relationship between the GDC process and the IGF. When and where? Wednesday, 11 October, at 09:45–11:15 local time (00:45–02:15 UTC), in Room I.

Anastasiya Kazakova will speak at a workshop on ethical principles for using AI in cybersecurity. The session will discuss what concrete measures stakeholders must take to implement ethical principles in practice and make them verifiable. It will also gather input and positions on how a permanent multistakeholder dialogue and exchange could be stimulated on this topic. When and where? Wednesday, 11 October, at 15:15–11:15 local time (06:15–16:15 UTC), in Annex Hall 1.

IGF Daily Summary for

Monday, 9 October 2023

Dear reader, 

Welcome to the IGF2023 Daily #2, your daily newspaper dedicated to the 18th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) discussions. 

AI and data were two keywords echoing during the kick-off day of IGF2023. Parliamentarians gathered for their now-traditional roundtable, and tens of workshops discussed development, human rights and other pillar themes. We noticed three main trends in yesterday’s debates.

First, many traditional narratives have been rehearsed, including the need ‘to manage both the opportunities and the risks that digital technologies bring’. Less repetition of common points could free more space for fostering new ideas through critical and engaging debates.

Second, existing initiatives were amplified in the debate, including a fresh focus on the G7 Hiroshima AI process and the G20 New Delhi initiative of digital public infrastructure.

Third, some new insights were brought into the debate, including a call for a ‘fourth way’- beyond EU, China, the USA approaches – which will help developing countries to leverage data as a strategic asset for socio-economic development, amplified by cross-border exchanges. 

As you can read below, our reporting aims to identify new insights, ideas, and initiatives in the IGF debates. You can also dive deeper into summary reports generated just in time by DiploAI.

The Digital Watch team, with support from DiploAI

Do you like what you’re reading? Bookmark us at https://wp.dig.watch/event/internet-governance-forum-2023 and tweet us @DigWatchWorld

Have you heard something new during the discussions, but we’ve missed it? Send us your suggestions at digitalwatch@diplomacy.edu

---

The summary of the discussions

The day’s top picks

• The need to move from general debates on data as a public good for development to operational use 
• Calls for a ‘4th way’ in data governance, in addition to the EU, China, and the USA approach
• The role of parliamentarians in shaping a trusted internet 
• Call for a judiciary track at the IGF

Leveraging the multistakeholder approach to build the Internet We Want

It is trite to speak, or indeed, in this case, write, about the impact that digital technologies have had on our everyday lives. However, it’s worth noting that these technologies now occupy a prominent position on the global stage, evident in G7, G20, G77, and UNGA discussions. Moreover, there’s a growing realisation that their potential extends far beyond what we’ve witnessed so far: They could help us achieve the SDGs, address climate change, and create a better world.

For instance, AI has emerged as a technology with the potential to enhance the impact of digital technology on the SDGs. Data show that 70% of the SDGs can benefit directly from digital technologies, highlighting their potential to positively impact global development.

UN Secretary-General Guterres outlined three key areas where we need to act:

1. Bridging the connectivity gap by bringing the last 2.6 billion people online, especially the women and girls in underdeveloped regions
2. Addressing the governance gap by improving the coordination and alignment of the IGF and other digital policy/governance entities within and beyond the UN system
3. Prioritising human rights and a human-centred approach to digital cooperation

The internet must remain open, secure, and accessible. This requires increased support for long-established multistakeholder institutions. Guterres emphasised: ‘We cannot afford another retreat into silos.’ Following this approach, he said, we can maximise the benefits of the internet while reducing its risks, and build the internet we want.

The IGF has a role to play: It should strengthen its position as a global digital policy forum in finding points of convergence and consensus.

But as the IGF crosses the threshold of adulthood, the community can look back and ask: has it delivered on its mandate and purpose? And the community can look forward and ask: How can the IGF better support preparations for and the follow-up to the Global Digital Compact and Summit of the Future?

The role of parliamentarians in shaping a trusted internet 

In the headlines, dwindling trust in politics, underscored by compelling polling data, has raised alarm bells. In the background, this negative trend threatens the legitimacy and effectiveness of political institutions, necessitating concerted efforts to rebuild trust. According to the Day 1 discussions, the integrity of democratic elections is in danger, in light of the widespread interference seen globally. It was noted that 70 democracies are scheduled to hold elections in 2024, and these elections are at a higher risk than ever before, given the growing misuse of digital technology for disinformation and election interference. 

Trust, a key phrase in this session, is further eroded as online violence, particularly against women in politics, remains a serious challenge. It not only jeopardises individual well-being but also undermines democratic processes. And then, there’s the enigma of AI – holding the promise of unprecedented opportunities while posing new challenges such as the micro-targeting of voting audiences, bias, or new, old, and changing privacy concerns. 

Amid these substantial concerns, the role of parliamentarians becomes pivotal. They are the cornerstones of our political system, entrusted with crafting the legal framework that governs our digital lives. Some speakers in this year’s parliamentary track pointed out that parliaments are the only branch of government that remains in touch with the individual daily digital lives of citizens. Thus, their active involvement in establishing robust frameworks for the governance of digital technologies rooted in transparency, accountability, and fairness is urgently needed. Contextualisation of global frameworks is another key point emphasised by the speakers. They argued that countries should adapt global frameworks to their specific needs and local requirements.

The need for agile governance was reiterated throughout the discussion: Sustainable, innovative, and future-proof regulations should be used to effectively and efficiently respond to the ever-changing digital technology landscape. 

The session was a call to action to reestablish trust, combat online violence, safeguard electoral integrity, and navigate the complex realm of AI. Above all, it underscored the indispensable role of parliamentarians in the global digital governance. 

AI

In September, the G7 Hiroshima Leaders agreed to develop an international code of conduct for AI. This mirrors the European Commission’s approach to developing voluntary AI guardrails ahead of its actual AI law and the approaches adopted or drafted in the USA and Canada. The High-Level Leaders Session V: Artificial Intelligence reiterated these calls and the need for international guiding principles, research and investment, awareness of the local context, and stakeholder engagement in achieving safe and trustworthy AI.  

The trajectory of AI systems is anticipated to evolve towards multimodal capabilities, seamlessly integrating text and visual content with fluency in multiple languages, extending its global impact beyond English. Generative AI, expected to be as transformative as the internet was, emerged as a central discussion point, poised to etch its mark on history. However, consumers need to know what is AI-generated content and what is human-generated content, particularly ahead of global elections.

The spotlight was on the alarming proliferation of AI-amplified misinformation and disinformation and the profound impact of technology on human emotions and rationality. In this context, there emerged a resounding call for truth, trust, and shared reality, reaffirming the pivotal role of journalism in upholding democratic values. Simultaneously, it was also recognised that the deployment of AI can help address pressing global challenges –  highlighting disaster management, climate crises, global health, and education as high-risk domains.

Transparency and collaboration emerged as linchpins for solutions. Transparency was analysed in the context of technical development and the governance of AI systems. Singapore’s effort in launching the open-source AI Verify Foundation was mentioned as an example of the commitment to open discourse and robust governance. Collaboration, particularly in a multistakeholder fashion, was highlighted, and the private sector was recognised as a force driving AI innovation and, thereby, a necessary partner to governments in governing AI.

Looking ahead, the session heralded the Hiroshima AI Process and the plans for an AI expert support centre under the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI) as signifiers of a proactive approach to addressing AI challenges. Forums such as the Frontier Model Forum, the Partnership on AI, and the ML Commons also represent similar forward-looking efforts. The UN, ITU and the OECD were asked to be more prominent in advancing AI initiatives. 

Internet fragmentation

As expected, internet fragmentation was on the agenda of the IGF. As a network of networks, the internet is inherently fragmented, yet, concerns are looming about harmful fragmentation, which would hindes the intended function of the internet. 

Geopolitical developments are changing internet governance. States increasingly seek to achieve digital sovereignty to exert control over their respective internet spheres. This comes as a response to the adverse effects of internet weaponisation, digital interference,  disinformation, misinformation, and campaigns embracing violence outside their national borders. Such regulatory tendencies, however, can lead to internet fragmentation with negative consequences, including restrictions on access to certain services, internet shutdowns and censorship, and exacerbation of the digital divide in underdeveloped regions. The internet as we know it cannot be taken for granted any more.

International norms are critical to reduce the risks of fragmentation. International dialogue in forums like the IGF is a valuable tool for inclusive discussions and contributions from diverse stakeholders. It is important to acknowledge different perspectives about fragmentation between the Global North and Global South. National regulations must, therefore, consider different contexts and allow countries to pursue their own policies. However, they should maintain a comprehensive approach to internet governance. Of particular relevance are the regulatory frameworks with extraterritorial implications – like those of the EU, China, and India – due to their economic powers and the global nature of the internet.

In developing national and regional regulatory frameworks, it is important to consider multistakeholder input, because the internet – and its critical resources – are not used, owned, or managed solely by states. It can be difficult to establish a central authority responsible for shaping internet policy requirements. Inclusivity and user empowerment are also important, particularly considering the perspectives of marginalised and vulnerable communities. At the same time, there is a significant risk in leaving public policy functions in the hands of private corporations. The industry should accept that it is not exempt from regulations.

A particular concern about harmful fragmentation is related to state control over the public core of the internet and its application layer. Different technologies operate at several layers of the internet, and those distinct layers are managed by different entities. Disruptions in the application layer could lead to disruptions in the entire internet. Therefore, governance of the public core calls for careful consideration, a clear understanding of these distinctions, and deep technical knowledge. 

Accountability for the governance of the public core of the internet should be dealt with on an international level. Regulations related to the technical layers should follow a layered policy approach, in which different regulations may be required for each layer (following approaches embraced in Japan and The Netherlands, for instance). By considering the specificities of different layers, policymakers can create a cohesive and comprehensive regulatory approach that does not lead to internet fragmentation (for instance, a layered approach to sanctions can help prevent unintended consequences like hampering internet access).

Human rights

Looking specifically at the intersection of gender and youth online to achieve a safer and more inclusive digital environment, the workshop BeingDigital Me: Being youth, women, and/or gender-diverse online presented different perspectives in addressing this matter. The speakers highlighted several initiatives that address gender and gender-based violence online, such as the Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse, the work of the Internet Society’s Gender Standing Group, and recent initiatives in Colombia. Speaking about the need for inclusivity and collaboration to combat tech-facilitated gender-based violence and gendered disinformation, the speakers pointed out the role of education and skill development in fostering increased youth participation. In addition, they spoke about the positive impacts of online platforms that promote gender-related initiatives and the need for a specific framework to address digital violence. 

The session on advocacy with Big Tech in restrictive regimes discussed a complex set of issues related to advocating and implementing human rights policies in countries with regimes restricting digital rights. From the perspective of civil society, in addition to engaging with governments on these issues, a challenge lies in understanding the ecosystem, the complexity of regulation and policies, and the fast-paced changes taking place. In restrictive regimes, tech companies that have human rights policies in place must address the dilemma of whether to comply with restrictive national rules or uphold their human rights policies and, as a consequence, limit their business activities within those jurisdictions. Also discussed was the specific role of platforms and their responsibility when it comes to content moderation (particularly AI-moderated content), addressing disinformation, and enhancing transparency. 

In addition, the speakers addressed the imbalance in capacity between civil society and tech companies, the challenges of sudden structural changes in tech companies that impact human rights corporate policies, and the imperative that civil society advocates for implementing human rights policies and contingency strategies by tech companies.

The participants discussed the examples of Russia, Vietnam, Türkiye, Syria, and Pakistan.

Data governance

The Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT), one of the pillar themes of IGF2023, was the focus of the session on the development aspects of free data flows, Opportunities of cross-border data flow – DFFT for development. Data is a recurrent topic at the IGF, with many narratives based on the need to balance the flow of data with trust and privacy, the extraction of value from data, data transparency, private-public partnerships, and others. 

A few novel highlights in this year’s discussions included: 

• a call for a ‘fourth way’ for data governance (in addition to the approaches taken by the USA, the EU, and China) in which data would feature as a strategic asset of developing countries, used for socio-economic development 
• the centrality of digital public infrastructure (DPI) as an infrastructure for inclusive, open, effective use of data 
• a more operational and practical concept of data as a public good (see the session on African AI: Digital Public Goods for Inclusive Development) 
• strengthened voices of developing and least-developed countries in emerging global data governance frameworks
• mainstreamed Data Free-Flow with Trust in development assistance projects and initiatives

Tackling the issue of balancing the operationalisation of Data Free Flow with Trust, the speakers in a dedicated session discussed the main challenges in ensuring that privacy, security and intellectual property are safeguarded in the promotion of the free flow of data. The speakers highlighted the challenges related to access to data, the need for redress mechanisms, and the impacts of restricted data flow on the fragmentation of the internet. They also addressed the responsibilities of different stakeholders – including governments and the private sector (be it internet companies or the telecom sector, for instance) – in safeguarding the privacy and security of data. A human rights-based approach to data and the involvement of civil society in the relevant policy processes were mentioned as a must for ethical and responsible data governance. 

It was also emphasised that applying the rule of law in the digital space is as crucial as in the physical world. A proposal was made to establish a judiciary track at the IGF to include judges and other professionals in the judiciary field in discussions related to digital governance. This would provide them with a specific platform to engage with experts, share insights, and gather more knowledge about digital governance.

Digital and environment

Green and digital are two pillars of many policy approaches and strategies worldwide. The workshop Cooperation for a green digital future highlighted the potential of AI and the internet of things in reporting and gathering accurate information about climate change. Yet, without common measurement standards, the impact of new technologies will be limited. The new societal dynamism of youth in the climate field has much potential for accelerating the multistakeholder approach in advancing an interplay between digital and green policy dynamics.

Because Japan, the host of IGF 2023, has been a leader in robotics for decades, it is not surprising that robots are featured in the IGF debate. This was the case, for instance, in the session Robot symbiosis cafe, where several examples of using robots to assist people with disabilities were given. But beyond highlighting the potential for good, the debate also raised significant concerns, including the need to deal with the hype surrounding the use of robots in society and the risk of new forms of divides emerging because developing countries might not have the resources and know-how to develop robotics. One solution for making robots more affordable is to foster agile, innovative enterprises to streamline the process of robot design and production, ultimately lowering costs and reducing development time.

Diplo/GIP at IGF2023

Follow our just-in-time reporting!

Unable to attend all the sessions you’re interested in? DiploAI and the team of experts have you covered with just-in-time reporting from IGF2023. Read summaries of the sessions and the main arguments raised during discussions, available only a few hours after the sessions conclude. View knowledge graphs as visual mapping of debates. Bookmark our dedicated IGF2023 page on the Digital Watch observatory, or download the app to read the reports.

We’re also present at the IGF2023 Village! 

If you’re attending IGF2023 in Kyoto in person, come visit us at booth 56! If you’re joining the meeting online, we have a virtual booth you can swing by!

Don’t miss our sessions today! 

We supported the IGF Secretariat in organising a session on unlocking the IGF’s knowledge, where Jovan Kurbalija and Sorina Teleanu will discuss the power of epistemic communities, organising data, and harnessing AI insights for our digital future. When and where? Tuesday, 10 October, at 12:30 – 13:15 local time (03:30 – 04:15 UTC), in Room K.

Pavlina Ittelson will moderate an open forum on ways to enhance in-depth long-term participation and efficient cooperation of CSOs in multilateral- and multistakeholder- internet governance fora. When and where? Tuesday, 10 October, at 14:45 – 16:15 local time (05:45 – 07:15 UTC), in Room K.

IGF Daily Summary for

Sunday, 8 October 2023

Dear reader, 

If you’ve arrived in Kyoto, good morning.

If you’re on your way to Kyoto, happy travels.

If you’re following the IGF online, we hope you’re settled in comfortably.

Welcome to the IGF2023 Daily #1, your daily newspaper dedicated to the 18th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) discussions. 

As per tradition, Diplo and the Geneva Internet Platform (GIP) are providing just-in-time reporting from IGF2023, bringing you session summaries, data analysis and more. What’s not traditional is the addition of DiploAI, our new AI reporting tool, to the mix. In this hybrid system, Diplo’s human experts and AI tool work together to deliver a more comprehensive reporting experience.

Our AI will prepare session reports for all the events, while our dedicated human team is curating daily highlights from these reports, which will be delivered to your inbox each day. This issue covers the highlights of Day 0 at IGF2023 on 8 October 2023.

Let’s begin, 

The Digital Watch team

Do you like what you’re reading? Bookmark us at https://wp.dig.watch/event/internet-governance-forum-2023 and tweet us @DigWatchWorld

Have you heard something new during the discussions, but we’ve missed it? Send us your suggestions at digitalwatch@diplomacy.edu

---

The summary of the discussions

The day’s top picks

• Importance of Data Free flow with Trust (DFFT)
• Establishment of a permanent data policy forum
• Appointing a goodwill ambassador for digitalisation and the SDGs 
• Call for bottom-up AI

High-Level Leaders Session I: Understanding Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT)

The centrality of data marked the kick-off of IGF’s high-level debate. Speakers during the High-Level Leaders Session I: Understanding ‘Data Free Flow with Trust’ (DFFT) anchored data in the wider context of tackling climate change and dealing with health challenges, among others. Thus, cross-border data transfers become critical for our shared digital future. 

The Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT) concept was introduced to ensure these transfers go smoothly. DFFT aims to enable the flow of data worldwide while ensuring data security and privacy for users.

However, the concept is not without challenges: The global data landscape is fragmented with diverse data security and privacy perspectives. Some of the concerns mentioned at this session were: potential privacy threats from third-party access and government surveillance, as well as the credibility and reliability of data sources. These concerns underscored the importance of implementing explicit principles on governmental access, as demonstrated by the OECD’s Trusted Government Access Program. It was also highlighted that building trust in institutions responsible for data collection is imperative, as is effective policy oversight.

Cross-sector collaboration is also needed to strengthen data governance. Promoting regulatory and operational sandboxes has also been proposed as a practical solution to foster good governance among stakeholders.

New initiatives for data governance are needed to establish a robust global framework capable of efficiently managing data to ensure secure and effective data flow. The idea to create a permanent international forum for data policy dialogue has been gaining wider acceptance, including support from G7 nations. Such a forum should avoid the risk of fragmented data laws and regulations.

High-Level Leaders Session II: Evolving trends in mis- & dis- information

An MIT report from 2018 found that lies spread six times faster than the truth. The situation is worsened by rapid advancements in generative AI, which can create synthetic content nearly indistinguishable from authentic content. This problem is even more critical in the Global South, where weaker institutional structures make populations more susceptible to misinformation.

What can be done to tackle misinformation and disinformation? A holistic approach needs to be taken and it must be multistakeholder in nature, the High Level Leaders Session II: Evolving trends in mis- and dis-Information noted. One part of the solution is enhancing media literacy, to proactively tackle the strength and attraction of disinformation, known as pre-bunking. Users also need to be aware of iof the health and accuracy of their data, and consume data in a balanced and unbiased manner (this was likened to maintaining nutritional balance in your diet). 

Another part of the solution is heightening the responsibility, transparency, and accountability of tech platforms, which should advance responsible innovation, boost fact-checking capabilities and comply with a Code of Practice against disinformation.

Strengthening regulation also forms a crucial part of the solution, but the introduction of new regulations unleashes its own set of challenges, topmost being their slow emergence, always lagging behind new technologies for content generation, including fake content. A revised governance structure that rewards the sharing of accurate information to combat the appeal of false news should also be in place. Emerging as a novel regulatory approach is the concept of ‘digital constitutionalism,’ offering a promising way to control this amplified influence of tech companies. This involves crafting collaborative global legislation and international frameworks capable of effectively confronting and regulating these platform companies.

High-Level Leaders Session III: Looking ahead to WSIS+20: Accelerating the multistakeholder process 

2025 will mark 20 years since the first World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held, and it is time for a review. The principles established during WSIS are still relevant, and the multistakeholder approach is crucial for effective internet governance, as highlighted by High-Level Leaders Session III: Looking ahead to WSIS+20: Accelerating the multistakeholder process. WSIS has made significant progress in establishing a human-centric, digitally connected global society through the use of ICTs. 

WSIS+20 is at a turning point, building on what worked well and adjusting to what is ahead of us, especially related to challenges triggered by AI. In this new context, the following issues remain high on the agenda of WSIS discussions: inclusion, bridging the digital divide, and putting human values at the centre of AI and digital developments.

High-Level Leaders Session IV: Access & innovation for revitalising the SDGs

As the SDG clock ticks ahead of the 2030 SDG deadline, digital is more and more considered a way to rescue the SDGs. This was clear during the SDG debates at the UN General Assembly in September. This call to add a digital element to the SDGs echoed during the High-Level Leaders Session IV: Access & Innovation for Revitalising the SDGs. The session listed numerous areas where digital can support the 2030 Agenda, including poverty, inequality, climate change, and the digital divide.

One of the examples from the session noted that initiatives utilising technologies such as AI, cloud computing, sensors, drones, and blockchain in smart agriculture are being implemented globally to tackle SDG2 and eradicate hunger. 

The session debate listed the following key issues in the nexus between the SDGs and digitalisation: ethical considerations, privacy concerns, digital literacy and equitable access to technology, responsible governance, and education. 

The discussions highlighted the interconnectedness of these goals and emphasised the need for a comprehensive, cooperative approach. Collaboration and partnerships among all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, and civil society, are deemed essential for the successful implementation of digital solutions in advancing the SDGs. Creating the position of goodwill ambassador for digitalisation and SDGs and initiating digital enlightenment movements can further help spread awareness and knowledge.

IGF Leadership Panel paper: The Internet We Want

The IGF Leadership Panel, a body established by the UN Secretary-General to support and strengthen the IGF, presented its paper The Internet We Want in a Day 0 session. According to the paper, the internet needs to be:

1. Whole and open. The potential fragmentation of the internet threatens social and economic development benefits, while also harming human rights.

2. Universal and inclusive. Data show that 2.7 billion people remain offline. Connecting them not only requires infrastructure, but also digital skills, and applications and content relevant for users. Frameworks that enable internet connectivity should be based on light-touch ICT policy and regulations, and encourage universal access, competition, innovation, and the development of new technologies. 

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy. Trust is strengthened when governments adopt robust and comprehensive commitments to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals. Cooperation between governments and stakeholders, including business and multilateral organisations, is needed to advocate for interoperable policy frameworks that facilitate cross-border data flows, enabling data to be exchanged, shared, and used in a trusted manner, thereby fostering high privacy standards.

4. Safe and secure. Robust frameworks for high levels of cybersecurity should be established, along with strong recommendations for legal structures, practices, and cross-border cooperation to combat cybercrime.

5. Rights-respecting. Human rights must be respected online and offline, and a human rights-based approach to internet governance is required to realise the full benefits of the internet for all.

What lies ahead?

300+ sessions! That’s what’s in store for IGF2023. We will be with you throughout it all, from the high-level leaders track, parliamentary track, youth track, main sessions, workshops, dynamic coalition sessions, open forums, town halls, lightning talks, award launches, and networking sessions. Bookmark our dedicated IGF2023 page on the Digital Watch observatory, or download the app to read the session reports.

Diplo/GIP at IGF2023

Diplo and the GIP are actively engaged at IGF2023, organising and participating in various sessions.

Diplo’s Director of Knowledge Sorina Teleanu (left) and Diplo’s Executive Director Jovan Kurbalija (right) during Diplo’s Day 0 event.

We kicked off Day 0 with a session on bottom-up AI and the right to be humanly imperfect, where we discussed how AI models should reflect more diversity, relying on different communities’ distinct traditions and practices. Such an approach will contribute to a more authentic, bottom-up AI model that does not limit itself to predominantly European philosophical traditions. We also noted that the uniqueness and imperfection of human traits are invaluable characteristics and essential considerations in the development of AI.

We’re also at the IGF2023 Village! If you are on the ground at IGF2023 in Kyoto, drop by our Diplo/GIP booth. If you’re joining the meeting online, check out our space in the virtual Village.