The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> PEGGY HICKS: All right. I think we are ready to roll. Thanks everybody, please take seats. I'm hoping that you can all hear me through your microphones or through the headsets. It's all good? Wonderful. Um, you'll see we are missing one of our panelists but we decided to start off because we want to have as much time as possible for you all to hear from our wonderful panelists today and also to have a chance to open up for your questions and comments as well.
This event is focusing on digital rights and partnerships, strategies for impact. And we are really looking today to have a open conversation an online experiences and fundamental human rights. We want to highlight the challenges that are faced by civil society, tech companies and enforcement agencies in protecting these rights within what we know is a complex, borderless online environment. And we need to recognize of course that each of us come to this issue from a different place. That states are the ones that have the legal obligations to take action and that companies have a duty to respect human rights under the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and civil society of course is there to keep everybody else honest on both of those obligations, one hopes.
So we are going to have a chance to talk a little bit about the collaborative projects going on. The good practices that are happening. And obviously the idea today is to foster more cross sector collaboration to strengthen human rights protection and online environments so that we all have a better sense of what we learned what we are currently doing and what we can do more. My name is Peggy Hicks I work with the office in Geneva and we've been working in this space and figuring out what we can contribute.
We had a recent event in Brazil working with a judiciary on a social media regulation. We have done a study in the MENA region focuses on the experience of journalists and human rights defenders in the digital platforms and we work with our partners the UN system, including UNESCO looking at platforms of human rights impact assessment as an idea.
We find of course in this work is that there is obviously a very unlevel playing field with regards to tech regulation in many jurisdictions. We do our best to work to try to bring in the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. And in particular the idea within that document that we are looking for a smart mix of mandatory measures and policy incentive that is a states can put in place. That means it will not only meet their obligation to respect human rights but doing what they need to regulate the space so companies are contributing to a more human rights protective environment.
We have a project probably hear a little bit about during this call. Looking at ‑‑ which we call the V‑tech project that is a encourages cross sector, multistakeholder engagement. And it's focused on trying to work with companies to answer some of the tough questions we see, including around AI and content moderation. And it remains a challenge to figure out hood to do this, especially since we are working with some larger companies and one question is how we make this engagement more global and engage with small and medium enterprises.
And right now we have a track how do we deal with investors within the tech space as well? We have found through our discussion with the companies that the work together with them strengthened the way they work among each other but also that we learn and have a privileged position through what we learned to be able to bring some of what is happening within the companies to a more general audience, for which we are very grateful.
We are also of course working with the international institutions in this space, including the UN human rights council. And some things that come out of that body and I'll do a shout out to our host, Norway, for a resolution they passed recently, which is important that for example, calls on us to assess the faced by human rights defenders through digital technology and do work on that issue.
So we are working across these different platforms with our trusted partners to try to have this conversation we are having today and we look forward to doing it more in depth with you. And to do that I'm privileged to have a panel. I guarantee the panel is not composed of only men. When Alex Walden from Google arrives soon. If you are taking screenshots hold up, we got Alex comes soon so we'll be more balanced but we are fortunate to present with us, and I'll present to you.
Jason Pielemeier who we worked with a executive network at of the global initiative. And the Ian Barber on the digital
And Esteve Sanz at the European commission. They come from different perspectives I think so it will be great to have their different contribution Alex, who will join us is the lead for human rights and expression at Google.
So we'll jump right into the conversation and turn to you, Ian first and ask you from the perspective of civil society what do civil societies face in protecting advocacy and human rights when confronted with these pressing issues, please?
>> IAN BARBER: Sure, thanks, Peggy. Good morning. I hope you are hear me okay. There's a number of challenges that civil societies are facing right now. Especially in past couple years is a critical time. One of the biggest one we are facing right now. it's strange for everyone here. There's a shrinking for funding we find for the civil society in the space. Donors aren't providing the same amount or withdrawing and. This is reflective of broader geopolitical alignment that's not the favor.
What comes with that is there's a less of an emphasis on the human rights approach. We see a lot of donors are advocating for pursues things along the lines of national security or economic impact looking for impact investment. So it's reflecting a narrative crisis I think I believe for the human rights based approach that needs a rethink at this point for us.
This has impacts not just on civil society from the Global North but particularly civil society in the global majority, which is also well less resource and able to make a impact and it's quick tore knowledge. And this leads to serious capacity issues. So of course with lack of funding, there's less of an ability for civil society across the globe to make an impact. And we see this resulting in lay outs and burn out and not having the expertise to come into these forms and spaces and be able to effectively advocate. We know there's been a proliferation of forms and processes in the past few years. It's quite difficult to keep up with even the standards ones we had around for a while the ones in Geneva and UPR and the UAC and Wisi and then the governance point.
And this is a big thing we are seeing and another one is this erosion of or the changing this stakeholder approach or policy making. Whether at the national or regional or global level they are not able to meaningful engage and be part of the decision making process or input. And there's a lack of closing of mechanisms inclusive and transparent for civil society to be able to engage. And this is problematic because we are seeing then these state‑led processes are increasingly tense state‑led process that is a don't include the expertise and the advocacy points of civil vote, including those that are most impacted and including those on the ground and have the knowledge needed to make effective decision frameworks. So I think that's the high level, I could go on but I'll stop there.
>> PEGGY HICKS: You hit on many points I'll deep into deeper in the conversation. And one point, one civil society isn't able to put in their input I want to emphasize that's not just a disadvantage to civil society who want their voice heard but the process itself. And it itself is weakened by the lack of expertise at the civil society and a real experience that civil society can bring in.
You hit on some things that I think everybody will want to come back to eventually on the main challenges that we see in the space, which unfortunately are shared I'm sure by all of in us the panel and many of you in the panel as well. And I'll turn to Jason. And for those that don't know the global network initiative but I think most people at IGF do it's represents a unique coalition civil society and private sector and public sector and stakeholders and we want to hear how GNI from the perspectives and interest from these members are integrated into their strategies for online human rights protection and maybe give us a example of successful collaborative efforts you have made. And welcome to Alex. I introduced you, Alex. thank you for joining us.
>> JASON PIELEMEIER: Thank you, Peggy, it's a pleasure to be part of this panel and in Norway and back at the IGF. So hi to everyone in the audience both in person and virtually. So appreciate the opportunity to share a bit more about the global initiative network and how we work to amplify the voice of a diverse rake of stakeholders.
As people may know, GNI is a multistakeholder organization. So our membership is it falls into four categories we call them constituency. So we have academic members. We have companies, including Google. We have civil society organizations, including Global Partners Digital. And we have investors as members. It's a big tent. But it always wasn't that way. When GNI started about 17 years ago it was a relatively small set of North American and some European organizations.
But today, we have over 100 members from every populated continent. And we really made some significant strides to put the global in global network initiative. That's been intentional. We've reached out to regions to be conscious of the issues that we focus on. The spaces that we curate. The events that we attend in order to really demonstrate our desire to be a part of a truly global conversation and to bring a diverse range of voices into those conversations. So it's been a really ‑‑ it hasn't been straightforward or necessarily easy to grow the network the way that we have. But we've been ‑‑ we think quite successful. And really appreciate the sort of range of intelligence and view points and experiences that new members have brought into GNI.
That's part of what we are about is trying to build this space, this trusted coalition of organizations that can come together and address difficult challenges in the tech governance realm. And we bring our members together in various ways. We do learning sessions. We have a spoke accountability process for our companies and we made efforts to expand the opportunities for members from across the world to participate in those assessments that we conduct. We also try and go out into the world and attend other events like the IGF. But also regional forums like the forum for internet freedom in Africa. The digital rights inclusion forum. Regional IGFs all over the world.
And hold sessions with our members and with other stakeholders and partners in those settings as well. In terms of an example, I think I guess one example of how we have grown the network in a way that I think hopefully is having impacts in jurisdictions outside of North America and Europe is the work that we did to bring MTN the South African telecommunications company into GNI. And MTN has been on a journey for several years and worked with a range of actors including the V‑tech project to understand their responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles and other frameworks and to build out their own approach to human rights. So they developed a robust human rights statement. They joined GNI in 2022.
Their transparency report has gotten much deeper and much more detailed. I encourage folks to take a look at that as an example of a really good technology company transparency report. And they are now going through their first GNI assessment. And that has created a lot of opportunity for them to look inward at their systems and policies and understand better the risks related to their business operations the jurisdictions they are operating in. And to get important feedback from a wide range of stakeholders through GNI. I'll stop there. And happy to talk more about any of that as we go through the rest of the panel.
>> PEGGY HICKS: Great. Thanks Jason. and it's great to hear about the growth and the way you did it. I think Ian raised the difficulty and sometimes there's a commitment to a multistakeholder approach but actually bringing everybody into the room is one of the challenges and doing it in a meaningful way. So your experience in doing that is really good to hear about. I think we'll need to come back a bit more on some challenges, including in terms of some disincentives to companies to do it. And we'll turn to Alex who has direct experience with these challenge that is a companies face in navigating this space.
Alex if we could hear from you about a bit about the significant or technical operational challenge that is a Google faces in mitigating online harms while simultaneously respecting freedom of expression, including and response to national context and government requests. And after that, you get two questions. The second is how you are also working to incorporate feedback from civil society. Organizations and human rights experts into your policies and practices. Thank you, Alex.
>> ALEX WALDEN: Thank you and thank you for the question and thank you for bearing with me on from my travel to Oslo to Lillestrom. And it's a good question and I appreciate the framing. And the challenge is how do you prevent online harms while you are respecting human rights for privacy and discrimination and. Not to sensor is not difficult what is difficult is ensuring you are respecting rights while you are taking a tailored approach to removing content that is harmful.
In particular the two things I want to flag are one the speed and scale. That's a policy challenge and it's also a very kind of operational challenge. The amount of content that we have being uploaded to our products every day means that the volume is high. And we need to figure out ways to address that at scale. And so we are using obviously there's human moderators that participate in a in that process, particularly for content that requires context to understand. But we use AI and we are increasingly using AI to help us do that faster.
Again, scale ‑‑ and you hear all the companies say this. Scale is a challenge and figuring out how to address that scale in a way is a challenge on how to iterate how we are going to do better. And the other piece is the complex regulatory environment, which means that a few things. One, we need safe harbors in order to do this work effectively to make sure that we are able to implement content moderation black practices that are effective and iterate on our policies. So one is safe harbors. And ensuring that we are regulatory protections in order to allow us to do that.
The other piece is about sort of ensuring that we don't have obligations for a general monitoring or for sort of pre‑scanning of content because that leads to censorship and over removal. So again that's the type of provision that we hope not to see in regulations but we do see over and over.
Ultimately, I guess the other piece is sort of conflicting regulations from around the world. As we are ‑‑ we are a global company and our services are offered everywhere. So we are always working to figure out global approaches to how we address the scale of the problem while also figuring out how to and a half gait the complex global regulatory environment, where certainly many well meaning governments are in this conversation with us trying to figure out how to address the problem. But there are some sort of regulatory protection that is a we need to place and also to ensure that both governments and companies are respecting rights as they are doing this work.
In terms how we engage stakeholders and take feedback. There's a few things I would say on the largest scale it's important for companies to show up to venues where our stakeholders are so we can participate in conversations with them and hear from them in that that context and things like IGF, venues like rights con and being part of the conversation and hearing the concerns from the stakeholders. Being present is important for us to do at those large venues. And then it's part of a larger organization where curated version of that conversation is taking place. And being a member of GNI is important and engaging in GNI is an important way we do that as Google. A place where we have core stakeholders talking about these issues and the tradeoffs all the time. And specifically just Google as an individual company we have programs in place part of the human rights program as well as along with our trust and safety colleagues ensuring that we are doing regional stakeholders meeting and stakeholders meetings with our global colleagues as well to make sure we are hearing directly from experts in the field about what they are hearing in the region and their experience with our products and what is working or not working.
And ensuring that feedback is going directly too the teams that are drafting our policies and enforcing our policies and building our policies.
>> PEGGY HICKS: Thanks, Alex. I think the area of stakeholder engagement is what works and what doesn't is an area we have to improve and iterate on. We did a v‑tech paper on this people may want to refer to with five key principles but what we found with talking with you is there's good practices and ways to improve. And there's still a lot of work to be done.
But we need to move over and glad to have with us another perspective coming from the European commission. Esteve. We would like to hear about how does international corporation play into your European commission strategy applying to human rights especially with countries odds of EU and how that comes to the WSIS+20 process.
>> ESTEVE SANZ: Thank you, Peggy, glad to be on this panel, the European voice on this panel. Digital human rights are a priority for the EU. We've been working on it for a long, long time. We have focused especially on getting agreements at the global level. Including the global digital cam pact the declaration for the future of the internet and et cetera that has states and critical actors to respect digital rights and not censoring the internet and et cetera, et cetera, there's a important achievement we did in the compact not to have states in the UN to not shutdown the internet.
But there's a gap and we have done studies on academic society and civil society to understand what is going on in ground when it comes to the states using the internet for control. I think we are in a new stage where the internet is not only control but used for control. And what we what we see a depressing trajectory. There's a gap that's puzzling between the diplomatic achievement that is a we manage to do in committing global actors and very powerful global actor to respect fundamental freedoms online and what is going on in reality.
This is ‑‑ this is very damaging and that's a diagnostic we have on the table. We have Hen engaged in several funding exercises we have a global initiative for the future of the internet that has a project we call internet accountability compass that will help us precisely age size this gap. What we are committing to. What is really going on in terms of digital repression. And this is extremely important for us. And every time that we engage on human rights and digital dialogues with countries we bring up digital depression, that is very important for us.
When there is a big event a internet shutdown we engage in public diplomacy in Iran and Jordan so we have clout for internet shutdowns there. And there's a lot of investment. We have projects like protect defenders. Which provides funding in case of urgent need for journalists and other civil society actors.
We work a lot with you, Peggy, so we have a lot of funding and projects in common. One on internet shutdown, several funding project that is a really aim at empowering OHCHR to play a critical role in this field.
So yes this is all going on. We are very much aware of the funding situation and there are a lot of internal discussions within the EU how we can step up our role. In in that area because we feel this is going to be really dramatic if we don't act soon. Of course discussions related to funding are also extremely dedicate delicate to any public administration and difficult but we have achieved some success already and some funding is flowing. Whether the EU can get all the funding extracted from those organizations is of course a open question. But it really sent a signal that the EU should step up, I would say.
On the WSIS+20 review, this is very important. It leaves with what I was explaining at the begin we achieved a lot of things when it comes to UN discussions about states committing to defend digital rights and et cetera. And but what we see a bit puzzling. The WSIS+20 review will double up on those efforts. What the EU member states have discussed and this is how we do go to negotiations of the document. So the take stock of the rise of the digital authoritarianism. This is presented by our ambassador to UN already. So acknowledging the digital authoritarianism is on the rise.
This has to be acknowledged. And then based on that, proposed what we aim ‑‑ what we hope will be unprecedented language at the UN level in the WSIS+20 resolution on digital human rights. So this language is a still object of discussion, internal discussions and we'll probably publish a paper with that language, again we hope it's not part of any UN resolution because the challenges are so high that we need to move up.
Part of the language will be for sure going much more concretely into statement that is a protect journal itself, civil society, et cetera, from digital [off microphone]. But that's our aim it's a public aim and ambitious but it's difficult to pull off but we rely on like minded partners and stakeholders to participate in the WSIS+20 resolution to do the. To do that
We think the context is a good one so we can achieve that. But again the reality might be different than whatever the document of WSIS declares so important to mind that gap.
>> PEGGY HICKS: Thank you, Esteve. It's really interesting to hear your comment about the disconnect about where we get to in terms of international commitments and what we see in the world and I think we see that on the financial side where the demand for action and work in this area grows exponentially but we are facing some challenge that is a you mentioned.
I want to loop back quickly for Ian and then we have a question for everybody and then we'll go to you all quickly. Ian, I wanted to ask you when you look at collaboration from a civil society perspective, what is civil society looking for? What does it need from governments and companies and other stakeholders to product human rights? What collaboration are seeing?
>> IAN BARBER: There's great collaboration at that table and I want to acknowledge that.
But it's the ones that transfer powers and resources back to civil society and allow them to engage W governments we alluded to this it's ensuring the policies and processes whether national or regional or global that they are putting in their inputs and it's received and acknowledgement and a feedback loop as well. And that's key. And funding we hit on sake metric. And recommitting to hums obligation themselves of course when things do happen.
With companies I think they operationalize their commitments through transparency and access. That can come in a variety of forms and come to access to data and be on their impact assessments and be on enforcement practices and also this iterative multistakeholder engagement with groups in different regions more at risk.
Those are going to be key as well. And this is can lead to this co‑design and co‑development of policies and framework that is a we want to see.
And for multistakeholder coalitions like GNI and again these things are gone dope but there's a collaboration deficit I'm seeing. There's a recognition that we have challenges but there's not always structural support to address them.
What you need to do is champion equity in partnerships as Jason alluded to. It's bringing in voices from the global majority and Global South and co‑leaders that are engaging advocacy and agenda setting and not tokenism. It's accessing to knowledge and sharing that so engagement can be realized.
And this is to build the gap between stake hold IRS among the areas or we have a structures that don't support everyone and there's no final impact and it's this symbolic means of doing things.
I think that's a cross response there.
>> PEGGY HICKS: I think that's great and it's important to make that point it has to be intentional and you got to put the resources and effort into it if you are you are going to make things work in a more global way like Jason talked about with GNI. Before I turn to the audience I want to ask one lightning round question of all of you. You started off Ian by noting we are navigating this human rights field in the midst of two really oppressive almost pressures from both the securitization side, where all that matters is, you know, the cyber describe convention as we showed. And looking. And David Kaye was just talking how we make exceptions for anything that may be relevant from the national security side. And I think even more prevalent now is this rational around the competition and innovation and economic side where anything that stand in the way and human rights are sometimes seen as obstacles or barriers to come over mean that is a companies and other stakeholders including governments seem somewhat less invested in answering some of the questions we are asking today than they have been.
For me at least at prior IGFs. So I wonder how you are looking at that. And when you get that type of pressure that, you know, why should we focus on doing it the multistakeholder way and bringing in civil society and why does it matter that we are building in human rights with the digital track that we do. Given we have competing tensions around national security and the need for greater competition and effective innovation. Me your 30 second answer that you use. I'm sure this comes up frequently in your line of work, we'll start this way, with Alex.
>> ALEX WALDEN: Never comes up with me.
>> PEGGY HICKS: Never.
>> ALEX WALDEN: You hit on things part of my internal and external conversations every did a from my perspective and what I say to colleagues inside the company and from holders outside we have to figure how to focus on these things at the same time. In order to achieve national security interest. And to focus on going innovation and have competition in the market we have to ensure that human rights is integrated across those conversations.
And remains a priority. States have a duty to uphold their obligations to human rights. So it is imperative that they in those conversations about regulation about how they use AI as part of their public sector ensure they are upholding that obligation. And companies also have a duty to do that too. But I think there's a role for everyone. And it is imperative that governments do it first in order to set the stage for all of the other actors to show up and do their part. And companies are provide providing technology to companies for government purposes and we need to make sure governments are thinking of human rights protection when procures that. There's a lot of good guidance out there and V‑tech has done some and have companies should think of their human rights obligation but we need to think of it at the same time.
>> IAN BARKER: For me with stakeholders, I challenge them so say I don't think human rights approaches and outcomes and security or whatnot are potentially even opposing things. They can be mutually reinforcing concepts and they can support them each other and to fold them in is a Trojan horse sometimes to get this funding which accident essential. And it comes to down to a final pin of civil society in the room you need to bring the knowledge and know how to this solution and so it's keeping with a initiative and brings the resources to people at the table.
>> JASON PIELEMEIER: I guess two things. One, taking a step back. I had an interesting mental movement. Esteve when you were talking, you said digital repression. And I heard digital depression. And I think that's because of the comments we heard initially from Ian. And just generally how a lot of us are feeling these days which I want to acknowledge is real. Is so we are dealing with digital repression and digital depression. But I think it's really important to remind ourselves that ‑‑ and this audience probably doesn't need this reminder maybe as much as others the internet is still an incredibly vibrant and credit critical space, especially when you compare it to offline mediums for free expression and freedom of association and assembly.
That's something we sometimes forget. We can look at the annual freedom net reports which are excellent. And see this trend towards declining freedom. And it's real. And we have to acknowledge it. But if you compare offline and online realities for people in even ‑‑ and maybe especially to most repressed places on earth, there's a real reason why they cling to the social media spaces, the open internet that they are able to access, whether it's finding cracks through a repressive laws in their country or using anti‑censorship technologies to get access to the open internet. And we don't have to look far, and look at the example of Iran today to see that reality. P
So I want to infuse that optimism or hope there's something worth fighting for and there's a reason why it's important to have these important statements from governments even if they are not always living up to them in practice. There's a reason why we continue to get together in the multistakeholder settings to talk what we can do even if it's easier sometimes to sort of give into cynicism. And digital depression.
So not a answer to your question but something that I feel like we need to remind ourselves of.
>> PEGGY HICKS: Very helpful. Esteve.
SKWRAO: Every time there's legislation we try to find a balance between the digital and it's a complex one, the parliament is involved and the E U and the civil society and the council. The commission. There's a proposal. It's a complex, almost miraculous way of doing legislation.
That yields something like the digital services act, which is perhaps the cornerstone of our digital revolution right now. As you well know it's a null of society approach. It's what we call it. The legislation itself has pieces aimed at involving civil society into the process of government of the platforms themselves. They are transparency provisions. Users can complain about taking down of content. Et cetera.
This the balance we found in the legislative process when it comes to the digital services act we think it's valuable. Of course we are pitching it to our partners globally. Bearing in mind that each region, each country has it own approach. But so far, I think that we have manage managed to find another approach. And it's something very important for us in the EU legislative system which is the charter of fundamental rights and whatever proposal on the table needs to comply with the Charter. And having that Charter as the ultimate element that frames everything we do in the EU and especially in digital is very valuable. Because in the it shows uh a path toward finding that balance correctly.
>> PEGGY HICKS: Wonderful. Thank you so much. I'll jump quickly now to our audience to see if any of you ‑‑ if we provoked thoughts from you that you would like to put on the table or any questions for our panel here. I'm not exactly sure how the tech here works. I think there's microphones alongside. I think you need to go to those. If you want to give me a thumbs up that's how you are supposed to do it? Yes. Okay, I see movement.
Looking forward to hearing the comment of the gentleman ‑‑ nope, he's just leaving. Bye. (Laughter). Anybody want to come in, trust me, we can keep the conversation going among ourself. I know these guys but we would like to hear from you. I know it's awkward to get out of your chairs.
I'll come back to you all. And I think Jason did something good, I think it is a space where it's important for us to look at good examples and put ideas on tables of things we want to see replicated. If you had to give me an idea of an incentive of something that you want to see more of, that you have seen either in a particular context that you have worked and give me good example that is a we can leave our audience with today. Alex, can I start with you?
>> ALEX WALDEN: Yeah. Um, I mean, I think ‑‑ well one thing I'll flag because it's top of mind and recent. And it hits on some DSA things too. GNI and DTSP, who is another organization that works with companies around risk assessment and harms issues, convened a risks and rights forum in Brussels that's month. And that was an opportunity for all of the companies who are members of GNI and DTSP who are also VLOS and VLOS under the DSA to come together and have conversations about the assessments now public and all of the information in that. So we have a lot of actual artifact that is a we can discuss. And talk about the challenges and what people want to see more of from companies. So I think where we have a lot of material that we can walk through and have really open, transparent conversation between civil society and companies that was a really ‑‑ I think it's a excellent example how we can kind of ‑‑ we have a piece of regulation. It's in action. And talking among the stakeholders about what is working and what is not and how we can improve. So that's a recent one that I think is really pressing especially for companies in particular.
>> PEGGY HICKS: Great, I think that's an important point, Alex. And to me it gives rise to something I think often in the space that evidence space of the idea of going beyond the general conversation to talk about specific case studies and something went wrong and putting what went wrong on the table sometimes. And unpacking it and figuring out how to do better is really important. And I know within our work where we do peer review among companies similarly situated we have some really frank and useful conversation that is a can push some things forward. But you can't do that if you stay at the 10,000 feet level. Ian.
>> IAN BARBER: I think I want to mention the precedent of the modalities and procedures we have seen in the UAC in the describer crime prevention there's a informal and formal way even if the output isn't what we are looking for that you can use this existing basis moving forward in other forums the mortality of the HC is more senior civil society and others to engage and take input and speak for the UN, which is great. And informally, there's a brain trust organization group that was working with companies across the stakeholder lines to advance our central aim.
I think those two examples have been used then in other UN processes and forums to replicate it to build in a more multistakeholder approach to things which is awesome and also a plug GDP is working for the review and working with the digital coalition and working with the Global North and Global South which you have seen in practice and other stakeholders and we'll be doing that moving forward so another positive note to end on.
>> PEGGY HICKS: I'll skip over you, Jason and go to Esteve because you already put yours on the table.
>> ESTEVE SANZ: We have a mugs stakeholder conversation of the web governances of 4.0 and AI and et cetera on the internet. So the impact of those powerful technology, block chain and et cetera, and the internet and not the governments and technologies. And it was a well attended conversation and there was a prominent human rights angle. What emerged from that series of principles that were object of consensus among the conversation apartments.
That basically set the ground so we can continue to be optimists in the context of this future internet, which is the stakes are much higher. What you can do with AI in terms of repression is massive.
What you can do with AI in terms of freedom of speech and liberation and analysis of bureaucratic processes and et cetera is also massive. What we set up after the conversation is a series of principle that is a set the ground to while we see the future internet emerges if we want to continue seeing the internet because this is not the internet it's what we make out of it. If we want to make that space to continue to be tool for self‑expression and for freedom and democracy, and et cetera these are the principles we should follow. And it leaves us with a lot of optimism and it was relative easy ‑‑ not ere stakeholder was at the table but it was relatively easy to come up with principles that would chart the path. So this charts in the WSIS negotiations and we bring up in the higher stakes when it comes to powerful technologies impacting the internet if we don't set things right then things could go massively wrong very easily. And we hope this is acknowledged the UN context as well.
>> PEGGY HICKS: Great, back to you, Jason.
>> JASON PIELEMEIER: Maybe mention one other collaboration across this table. The rights and risks forum and the work we are doing on the Digital Services Act and also trying to think how we can continue to ensure not just the risk assessment under the DSA but under the online safety act and other regulations remain consistent with the guiding principles and the broader human rights frameworks. And also we've been working with GPD to empower civil society voices from the global majority to be engaged for in the WSIS process precisely so we can support the kinds of initiatives sounds like the EU is eager to put forward and not just seen as western approaches that don't resonate and have support across the world.
Just today I think we will be publishing a series of reports from the partners in 9 different countries. We have done workshops at lightning pace over the last 2 months around the world with civil society actors in the different countries to help inform a wider audience and involve a wider group of stakeholders in the input process to WSIS. Obviously that work will continue over the next several months to the end of the year when the WSIS process concludes.
But I think it's important to emphasize WSIS, being here at the IGF is a critical moment for this community. Given that all of these new technologies are creating opportunities for governance to go in directions and that direction can build on and learn from and incorporate the multistakeholder human rights based value that is a we have successfully pioneered as a community or they could go in a different direction. So it's a really a fork in the road. Not a phrase that I like to use anymore, given the way it's been misappropriated but I think it's a critical time for us to be here the together at the IGF.
And really appreciate all the panelists here speaking about how we can continue to work towards that WSIS outcome that will reinvigorate the mugs stake holier approach.
>> PEGGY HICKS: Thanks, and you jumped ahead again, which is good. Shows we are on the right track. And next thing I want to ask ‑‑ I don't see somebody at mic yet, maybe somebody there, please come back. And I'll throw out my question and you can choose. A number of you focused on the difficulties sometimes in making sure that both the resources and the engagement is happening as effectively outside of Europe and a Global North context.
And figuring out how more can be done both to reap the benefits of digital technology but also to make sure that the tools and resources needed to have the types of conversations engagement that we need in places without as many resources how we can better make sure that is happening. So I wanted to get your on that. But turning to our colleague here first. Please.
>> Thank you, Alejandro from Access Now and I think related to that comment is what are the accountability mechanisms for these types of partnerships? Especially when you are working in the Global South and it's very easy for Global North actors to disengage when these types of partnerships are happening N your experience what are the accountability mechanism that is a we can create?
>> PEGGY HICKS: Great question, thank you very much. So maybe Jason you want to start on that one? Since you are doing quite a bit?
>> JASON PIELEMEIER: Sure, I think accountability can take a lot of different forms. To Alejandro's question. In GNI, for instance, we have an accountability mechanism built into hold companies to the commitments they make. And that's a process that involves sort of very detailed valence review of internal company systems and policies with independent assessors and as I mentioned at the beginning, we've been working hard to build more opportunities for a wider group of GNI member to be a part of those conversations.
I think at the sort of multilateral level the question of accountability has always been a vexing one. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights does an important role in calling out where the states fall short in their commitments. But more tangible, legal processes are lacking in many contexts. We do have obviously, you know, committees related to different treaty body that is a can produce reviews.
We have the periodic review and the special mandates. So it's not barren field but it's also one that ‑‑ that still could be sewed with more seeds, I don't know. I'll stop trying to torture that analogy.
I think for some other spaces , you know, whether it's the IGF itself as a venue for collaboration or the WSIS process, the Global Digital Compact, it's an open question. How do we ensure not just the states producing the final texts but the other stake holders committing themselves and involving themselves from those processes continue to carry them out. Part of it involves being at places like the IGF where we can continue to stand on stages and have to answer to audiences about what we have done since we made these commitments.
Part of it involves I think our funding and being able to have support for watchdogs like Access Now and others in civil society. It's going to take a lot of different tools but I think at least in this space we have forums and venues like this, which we sometimes take for granted. But I think we need to double down and reinvest in.
>> PEGGY HICKS: Do you want to say a few words on the accountability side?
>> ESTEVE SANZ: What we have witnessed already and we will continue witnessing is the abuse of the digital legislations. And this includes also potential UN instruments. And really to hold states accountable for not abusing those digital legislations you need a civil society approach. Because these will be very difficult to trace. It will be untransparent by definition. If you don't get the journalists and civil society activists to call out those abuses it will be difficult at the global level to trace it.
We are having a gap of what is happening and what we see in practice and there's a fundamental problem of complexity and transparency either you independent engagement the multistakeholder community to tackle that or we simply will not know.
>> PEGGY HICKS: That's a lead in for you Ian to look at the question from the civil society side and the role it plays.
>> JASON PIELEMEIER: Civil society sake note as noted a watchdog or observer and one that can bring the problems to light in the broader community is a central component and one that's overlooked in a way.
When you speak of accountability a lot comes down to trance person I and dc omegas and the processes of moving forward and it's not a one‑off event, it should be done in an iterative way. I'll keep it short and sweet.
>> PEGGY HICKS: Alex on the your side the company side.
>> ALEX WALDEN: At least for GNI companies Jason hit on a key piece the independent assessment we have as members of GNI and that's a key way of which we are looking to ensure that we have accountability for our commitment to principles the GNI principles in particular. And obviously being transparent about our commitment to the GNC and what our policies are and qualitative transparency how we enforce them and implement them. And that the just not just the global majority but the world and how we enforce that.
And benefit we have the digital acts in Europe. And that's a beginning entree of a risk assessment report that becomes public could look like. So I think we are all learning what the value of something like that is for accountability if in a regulatory setting.
>> PEGGY HICKS: I think that's a good point and thank you for the question it's one where we are learning now and I think it's important to say how useful are some of these tools going to be? Do they provide the value they need? I think Ian's point about the transparency piece is crucial, transparency we don't get to accountability very easily. But I'm sure there's more we can do and I'm sure that Access Now could help us figure it out. And thank you for the comment.
I am getting a signal we have to draw the session to a close. In doing so, I want to thank you those responsible for the organizing of it. Which was not my office but Cristina Herrera from Google and Erlingur Erlingson when adapt who brought us together today. And we appreciate talking about these issues with you. And we hope you go away with collaboration ideas and comments you want to follow up with on in the IGF going forward. And reach out to any panelists to get more information on some good practices we discussed. And thank you so much for joining us today.
