IGF 2023

IGF 2023 Anonymous Wed, 26/07/2023 - 14:37
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Kyoto Messages

Kyoto Messages lbobo Fri, 20/10/2023 - 12:56

This document is a summary of points raised during the 18th annual Internet Governance Forum meeting hosted in Kyoto, Japan from 8 to 12 October 2023.

Discussions at the Forum focused on the overarching theme of The Internet We Want – Empowering All People.  Sessions were organised within eight subsidiary themes which were concerned with:

 

·         Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies 

·         Avoiding Internet Fragmentation    

·         Cybersecurity, Cybercrime and Online Safety

·         Data Governance and Trust

·         Digital Divides and Inclusion

·         Global Digital Governance and Cooperation

·         Human Rights and Freedoms

·         Sustainability and Environment

 

These draft Kyoto IGF Messages are intended to provide a high-level overview for decision-makers of the most current thinking on key Internet governance and digital policy issues.  They are sourced from discussions at more than 300 sessions held during IGF 2003.   Session organisers were invited to contribute to the compilation of the Messages by identifying key takeaways and calls for action from their sessions.  This set of draft messages, curated by the IGF Secretariat, is published for community review.  The final IGF 2023 Messages will be published as part of the annual meeting’s outcomes.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Secretariat. The designations and terminology employed may not conform to United Nations practice and do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Organization.

 

 

 

OVERARCHING ISSUES

 

Many sessions during the Forum discussed the contribution which the Internet and digital technologies can make to supporting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

Attention to the role which digital technologies can play in achieving the SDGs has intensified, particularly in those areas that are currently lagging behind delivery schedules following the COVID-19 pandemic.  Emphasis was placed during the Forum on access and infrastructure, the governance of new technologies such as artificial intelligence, the need to develop digital skills, ethical behaviour in the production and use of digital technologies (including issues of e-waste, data protection and cross-border data storage), and the need to bridge the gender digital divide and promote increased participation of women in technology and leadership roles.

Many sessions discussed the issues that are proposed for inclusion in the Global Digital Compact that is being prepared ahead of the United Nations Summit of the Future scheduled for 2024, including the role of the IGF as a source of multistakeholder expertise for the Compact and its outcomes.  The forthcoming twenty-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society, which is scheduled for the General Assembly in 2025 and will review the IGF’s mandate, was also considered.

The IGF Leadership Panel presented a paper on The Internet We Want proposing broad principles for the future development of the Internet, on which it invited views from the IGF community.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Susan Chalmers

Overarching Issues edit

Suggestion to include one new sentence, as illustrated below:

Groups that are disadvantaged economically, socially and educationally also tend to be disadvantaged digitally. Many people are unable to access the Internet in their own language. Addressing these gaps in access, including the quality of access, is a central issue in building an inclusive Internet.

0 People voted for this

The Digital Future: Bridging Divides and Advancing SDGs

The IGF sessions undoubtedly underscored the vital role of digital technologies in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially in post-pandemic recovery, where discussions emphasizing access, new technology governance, digital skills development, ethical practices (e-waste, data protection), and bridging the gender digital divide was made key aspects of discussion. Special focus on the Global Digital Compact and IGF's role as a multi-stakeholder highlighted the United Nation's commitment in ensuring the theme "The Internet We Want - Empowering All People", alongside mentioning on the upcoming World Summit on the Information Society review in 2025 also gave opportunity to involve researchers on the domain of internet governance in participating in framing the principles for the Internet's future development, specially in topics of sustainable internet which holds potential to be the first theme of convergence among all stake-holders who are largely divided on topics serving the best interest of each.  IGF's session on sustainable internet can stand as path breaking for making all stakeholders join and work on the topic to ensure green internet for all achieving SDGs.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user judithh12

Accessibility

Please add the following to this sentence

and the need to bridge the gender and accessibility digital divide and promote increased participation of women and persons with disabilities  in technology and leadership roles.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user judithh12

Accessibility

Please add the following to this sentence

and the need to bridge the gender and accessibility digital divide and promote increased participation of women and persons with disabilities  in technology and leadership roles.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Valeria Betancourt

The value of the IGF

The IGF and its associated regional and national forums as well as the intersessional mechanisms (the IGF ecosystem as a whole) has consistently been a space for enabling public participation and learning, monitoring of progress in achieving inclusive, human-rights based, people-centered internet and digital governance, and discussing the positive and negative impacts of the internet and internet policies in a multidisciplinary and multi stakeholder setting.

IGF nurtures thinking and the practice around the WSIS action lines, including policy responses. The IGF dynamic coalitions on community connectivity, and net neutrality, along with the best practice forums on gender and access and on local content have continued to make significant progress in identifying innovative approaches and practices to help move forward in enabling complementary models of connectivity that address digital exclusion.

Since its creation, the IGF has been a unique space to engage with different stakeholders in constructive conversations that allow for the exchange of a diverse array of perspectives and ideas, collaboration and cooperation towards global and contextual responses at the top of the political agendas to address the persistent and emerging challenges in the digital age, including the environmental crisis. The WSIS+20 should build on the learning of almost two decades of implementation of the multistakeholder approach advanced by the IGF. 

The IGF works and its mandate needs to be renewed and strengthened beyond its 2025 mandate. At the IGF in Kyoto, APC lauched #TheIGFWeWant campaign to highight IGF’s impressive track record as a central space for multistakeholder engagement.
https://www.apc.org/en/news/join-campaign-strengthen-theigfwewant-we-al…

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Bruna Martins dos Santos

Lack of comments re. other overarching themes

I believe theres still a lot to be said in this section that goes beyond the conversation regarding the SDGs. This year's IGF had a lot of discussions on Artificial Intelligence and Platform regulation that are not entirely encompassed in this section. 



Other than that, I miss a paragraph for each of the other overarching themes of these years IGF such as (a) Avoiding Internet Fragmentation;  (b) Cybersecurity, Cybercrime & Online Safety; (c) Data Governance & Trust; (d) Digital Divides & Inclusion: (e) Global Digital Governance & Cooperation (f)Human Rights & Freedoms; (g) Sustainability & Environment. 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

 

Theme

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a powerful and transformative technology. It is difficult to think of a sector that is not already affected and may not be transformed by its rapid development and scope, including growth in productivity, and the consequences of rapid change arising from this in economy, society and culture. 

Recent developments are remarkable and pose new challenges as well as opportunities. In the past year, the emergence of generative AI and its applications has entered citizen’s everyday lives and discussions. 

Many people are concerned about the implications of this for human society and the environment, in both the short and longer terms.  Global multi-stakeholder dialogue and cooperation are needed to ensure that AI is developed and applied responsibly.

The applications and impact of AI transcend national boundaries. Most AI policy discussion, development and analysis, however, is currently focused in and on the Global North.  Opportunities and impacts for the Global South need to be more thoroughly understood and prioritised.

Messages

Global cooperation

·         We can only realise AI’s potential to benefit everyone through collective global efforts that draw on the wide range of views of policymakers, technologists, investors, businesses, civil society and academia from all countries and regions.  High-level global governance dialogues and curated expert groups need to be balanced with inclusive dialogues that are open to all. 

·         Collaboration between global AI policy and governance fora and initiatives is needed to prevent fragmentation of efforts and inconsistent policy approaches.  Developing and sharing best practices will be important and must include perspectives from the Global South.  Governments in the South need to increase attention to responsible and safe development of AI within their countries, developing policies and strategies based on building blocks that include connectivity, digital literacy and cybersecurity.

Governance

·         AI and other emerging technologies should be developed and used in ways that respect human rights, democratic values and the rule of law.  AI systems should be inclusive and privacy-respecting by design. The processes to develop AI technologies themselves, as well as AI policy, governance frameworks and regulation should be transparent and inclusive. 

·         Considerable progress has been made in developing global AI principles, including in the context of the G7 Hiroshima AI process that was initiated by the Government of Japan. We now need to move from developing ethical guidelines and principles to operationalizing AI governance. 

·         Concerted effort should be put into translating AI principles into actionable measures and effective implementation. Our efforts to operationalise globally shared values should be flexible enough for measures to be readily adaptable to diverse local and cultural contexts. 

·         AI standards, guidelines, self-assessment mechanisms and codes of conduct are important, and regulation is also necessary for effective AI government. There is an urgent need to clarify the responsibilities and accountability of all parties in the AI development lifecycle and define the necessary safeguards.

·         It is essential to strengthen mechanisms of oversight and to track the implementation and impact of AI policies and plans that have already been agreed.  

Human rights and development

·         The increasing deployment of AI in our societies can empower and connect people but could also further discrimination and deepen digital divides. AI innovation should respect human rights and the rule of law.

·         If harnessed safely and responsibly, AI could help the world community to revitalize progress towards achieving the SDGs.  We need to raise the level of ambition around this and employ new technologies to address the complex problems that we face.  At the same time, we should be careful not to get carried away with AI’s future promise but to root AI discussions and applications in global and local realities.

·         It is crucial to involve communities and people with diverse backgrounds in the development of AI technologies. We need to build relevant technical, social and legal expertise.  Cooperation can only grow if there is shared understanding of AI concepts and terms.

Generative AI

·         Generative AI has shown that it can improve efficiency and accelerate innovation, but we also need to address and prioritise questions concerning the impact that this rapidly developing technology may have on human rights and democratic institutions across the world, including in the Global South.

·         Policymakers need to take an inclusive approach to understanding AI impacts. Vulnerable groups that interact with generative AI should be proactively engaged in discussions about governing this new technology.

·         All stakeholder groups should work together to protect and preserve truth.  Disinformation and misinformation powered by generative AI (for example in the form of deepfakes) can obscure or change perceived reality.  Promoting reliable information is vital, especially in the context of elections.  

·         It is important to accelerate the development of technologies that detect and identify AI-generated content.  These efforts can help mitigate the risks associated with deep fakes and generative AI, promote responsible data use, and contribute to a more secure and trustworthy digital environment. Labelling AI-generated content will allow consumers to make more informed decisions and choices.  Innovative interdisciplinary approaches are needed to develop the necessary approaches.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user yoshida.miki_55532

Importance of concrete ideas of solutions

Like the sentence "labelling AI-generated content will allow consumers to make more informed decisions and choices", concrete ideas of solutions are highly expected.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user yoshida.miki_55532

Importance of concrete ideas of solutions

Like the sentence "labelling AI-generated content will allow consumers to make more informed decisions and choices", concrete ideas of solutions are highly expected.

0 People voted for this

Global Cooperation for Responsible AI: From Principles to Action

To harness the transformative potential of AI while mitigating its risks, global collaboration is imperative. The advancement in AI technology has shown potential of even impacting democratic process or elections using dee fake , there is a need for crafting ethical principles for operationalizing AI governance, with adaptability to diverse contexts, that will ensure inclusivity, transparency, and respect for human rights while focusing AI development and policy. Oversight mechanisms need to be strengthened, and effective vigilance in tracking policy implementation is vital. AI should bridge digital divides and empower communities, but it must be scrutinized for its impact, particularly generative AI, requiring engagement with vulnerable groups. Detecting and labeling AI-generated content is essential to combat disinformation and misinformation. Innovative interdisciplinary approaches are key towards advancing promotion of responsible AI use.

0 People voted for this

Ensuring reference to education

To add in text to the effect of: 'Growing use of AI should be incorporated into wider inclusive digital literacy efforts, both as a stepping stone to wider community engagement, and in order to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of initiatives to build individuals' competence and agency in the digital world'

0 People voted for this

Ensuring reference to education

To add in text to the effect of: 'Growing use of AI should be incorporated into wider inclusive digital literacy efforts, both as a stepping stone to wider community engagement, and in order to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of initiatives to build individuals' competence and agency in the digital world'

0 People voted for this

Ensuring reference to education

To add in text to the effect of: Growing use of AI should be incorporated into wider inclusive digital literacy efforts, both as a stepping stone to wider community engagement, and in order to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of initiatives to build individuals' competence and agency in the digital world

0 People voted for this

Regulation of AI

To add in text along the lines of: Regulation of AI, and in particular of the use of materials to train algorithms, should be based on evidence and careful impact assessment, and make sure to take account of impacts on research, education and other public interest activities

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

AVOIDING INTERNET FRAGMENTATION

 

Theme

There is widespread agreement within the IGF community about the value of a global, unfragmented Internet as a platform for human activity.  Internet openness is considered instrumental in fostering the enjoyment of users' human rights, promoting competition and equality of opportunity, and safeguarding the generative peer-to-peer nature of the Internet.

Concern has been expressed, however, that divergence in the structure of the Internet may lead to fragmentation that could endanger connectivity and reduce the functionality and value of the Internet.  A wide range of political, economic, and technical factors can potentially drive fragmentation.  Concerns have also been raised about the effects of growing fragmentation of the Internet user experience, and about competition and lack of coordination between Internet governance processes and entities.

While legal, regulatory and policy approaches necessarily differ around the world, active coordination across international boundaries is vital to ensuring that fragmented approaches do not threaten the global reach and interoperability of the Internet.  Global cooperation and coordination can identify early warning signs, mapping the impact of policies and other developments, and preparing to address the implications of such trends.  A multistakeholder approach is widely considered to be that best suited for assessing, evaluating and monitoring the potential unintended consequences of measures that affect the Internet.

Messages

Multistakeholder participation

·         The single global Internet is widely considered the bedrock of activity that is undertaken on it.  The risks and potential impact of a fragmented Internet are, however, understood in different ways by different stakeholders in countries that have diverse Internet environments.  There is a need to explore common ground and work towards a shared understanding of the issues in order to identify and collaborate on appropriate responses across these different contexts.

·         The multistakeholder community should develop policy approaches and regulatory principles that are conducive to the continued evolution of a global and interoperable Internet.  These approaches should avoid unnecessary limitations on the use of data and adverse impacts on the infrastructure of the Internet, while local data regulations should respect open and interoperable protocols.  It should be possible to protect the legitimate interests of citizens and governments while avoiding Internet fragmentation and digital protectionism. 

·         States and other stakeholders may wish to explore the use of modular agreements to institutionalise dialogue and cooperation on Internet and digital economy issues, including those relevant to fragmentation.  Industrialised countries should explore ways to faciltate developing countries’ participation in such arrangements in order to advance digital development and attenuate the risk of Internet fragmentation.

Cyber norms

·         Informed discussions around cyber policy, norms and incidents require a comprehensive approach that considers dynamics across the entire ecosystem. When exploring the impact of norms on cyber incidents, it is not only important to examine them in relation to the cause, response, mitigation, and recovery of an incident, but also to consider consequential impacts across the ecosystem, including at the human level.

·         The opportunities and challenges presented by the digital ecosystem empower and impact individuals and communities.  Grounding efforts to improve cyber resilience at the individual, societal, economic, and even interstate levels benefit from a full appreciation of the consequential impacts of policy decisions, norms, and incidents.



The Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 review

·         The Global Digital Compact provides an opportunity to reassert the value of an open interconnected internet within the context of the UN Charter, the Sustainable Development Goals and the exercise of human rights.

·         It is important that the Compact should provide an opportunity for the technical community to engage constructively with government stakeholders and thereby bridge gaps between technical and policy perspectives.  Using overly technical narratives in non-technical politicised discussions risks diluting trust in the Internet’s technical layer and interoperability.  

·         The multistakeholder community should foster a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities surrounding content creation, access to information, and open Internet by re-evaluating the past, envisioning the future, and engaging in constructive dialogue. 

·         Ahead of the WSIS+20 review, the IGF community should look forward and seek to identify what the Internet could or should look like in twenty years’ time and what actions are needed today to shape a positive vision for the future.  Stakeholders should discuss the continued role of the internet as a global network, identify potential risks associated with the splintering of the Internet and raise awareness about the perils of fragmentation and the need for collective action. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user yoshida.miki_55532

Lack of stakeholders from the private sector

As it was my first time participating in the Forum, I was surprised by the lack of stakeholders from the private sector, especially from the technical community, in the discussion despite its value put on multi-stakeholders. Thus, the following contents need to be stated emphatically: "It is important that the Compact should provide an opportunity for the technical community to engage constructively with government stakeholders and thereby bridge gaps between technical and policy perspectives." 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user dias.talita_54050

The two points on “Cyber…

The two points on “Cyber norms” seem out of place and unclear. It is not clear how the issue of cyber incidents and norms relates to internet fragmentation. The meaning of “ecosystem” in that section is also unclear. Perhaps the point belongs to the section on “CYBERSECURITY, CYBERCRIME AND ONLINE SAFETY”.

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user dias.talita_54050

The two points on “Cyber…

The two points on “Cyber norms” seem out of place and unclear. It is not clear how the issue of cyber incidents and norms relates to internet fragmentation. The meaning of “ecosystem” in that section is also unclear. Perhaps the point belongs to the section on “CYBERSECURITY, CYBERCRIME AND ONLINE SAFETY”.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user dias.talita_54050

Cyber norms

The two points on “Cyber norms” seem out of place and unclear. It is not clear how the issue of cyber incidents and norms relates to internet fragmentation. The meaning of “ecosystem” in that section is also unclear. Perhaps the point belongs to the section on “CYBERSECURITY, CYBERCRIME AND ONLINE SAFETY”.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user dias.talita_54050

Cyber norms

The two points on “Cyber norms” seem out of place and unclear. It is not clear how the issue of cyber incidents and norms relates to internet fragmentation. The meaning of “ecosystem” in that section is also unclear. Perhaps the point belongs to the section on “CYBERSECURITY, CYBERCRIME AND ONLINE SAFETY”.

0 People voted for this

Fostering Global Cooperation: Safeguarding the Open Internet

Fostering global cooperation is vital to preserving the open, interconnected Internet that is slowly getting paved towards fragmentation. Multi-stakeholder communities should develop inclusive policies including exploring modular agreements for international collaboration that can prevent fragmentation. Preparing for a comprehensive approach to develop cyber norms can cause significant impacts at all levels, and initiatives like the Global Digital Compact should engage both technical and policy stakeholders to envision a positive future for the Internet.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Center for Global IT-Cooperation

To be added

It is vital to emphasize the importance of including measures to prevent fragmentation of the Internet within the framework of the Global Digital Compact initiative. Intergovernmental negotiation process should establish overarching principles that aim to establish equitable liability criteria for global digital platforms and empower states to regulate their respective national segments of the Internet autonomously.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Center for Global IT-Cooperation

Concerning Internet Fragmentation

Global expert community should take into consideration the possibility of formation of mathematical models for assessing the risks of fragmentation. Internet fragmentation analysis needs to be carried out taking into account technical, commercial and political factors that may influence fragmentation as mathematical parameters. Such an approach will make it possible to form a more accurate and uniquely defined assessment of the threats of fragmentation and minimize the uncertainty of what is to be understood under the term Internet Fragmentation.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Valeria Betancourt

Building on the WSIS principles - multistakeholder participation

No open, free and secure digital future for all can be shaped by excluding the voices and realities of the most affected by the digitalisation of all aspects of life and allowing the predominance of interests oriented to keep the status quo.

The GDC should replicate the model of the WSIS+10 review, in which the primary participants were governments in accordance to its intergovernmental character but which also allowed the possibility of effective and real engagement of other stakeholders in the preparatory and negotiation processes.

Inclusion should be the norm, not the contrary.

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Valeria Betancourt

Building on the WSIS principles - multistakeholder participation

No open, free and secure digital future for all can be shaped by excluding the voices and realities of the most affected by the digitalisation of all aspects of life and allowing the predominance of interests oriented to keep the status quo.

The GDC should replicate the model of the WSIS+10 review, in which the primary participants were governments in accordance to its intergovernmental character but which also allowed the possibility of effective and real engagement of other stakeholders in the preparatory and negotiation processes.

Inclusion should be the norm, not the contrary.

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Valeria Betancourt

GDC and unaddressed WSIS challenges

The unfinished business of WSIS cannot be forgotten and the challenges that have emerged in the last two decades have to be addressed by the GDC.

It is necessary to enable political, regulatory, technical, technological and financial conditions to increase individual and collective autonomy, agency and choice in how people connect to digital technology and spaces, as well as how they use, shape, inform or create them once they are connected.

A realistic approach to do so is one based on human rights, intersectional and feminist frameworks to address the geopolitics of global inequality and injustice. The conclusive test for a well-guided digital transition is in the public, collective and social value it can create, and the human freedoms it can expand.

In particular, the GDC should address the persistent and exacerbated digital exclusion and inequality and the need to ensure alignment of private and public interest. 

 

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Valeria Betancourt

GDC and gender

The GDC must be based on universal standards that adopt a human rights-based approach and must also recognise the differentiated impact that information and communications technologies (ICTs) have on women, girls and people of diverse genders and sexualities.

The core principles of the GDC of openness, freedom and security must be infused with an intersectional feminist perspective to ensure that the ongoing digital transformation of our economies and societies can usher in a gender-just world that is affirming to all individuals and their path to self-actualisation.

We are proposing the Feminist Principles for including gender in the GDC, resulted from a dynamic and multifaceted process, drawing inspiration and guidance from a range of sources, such as the Agreed Conclusions of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) 67; the conclusions of a UN Women & Equality Now consultation event at CSW; and a submission to the Global Digital Compact consultation by APC, following an event with gender rights and digital organisations in March 2023. The principles also draw on United Nations Human Rights Council (A/HRC) resolutions, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/feminist-principles-including-gender-global…

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Bruna Martins dos Santos

Replacement of Cybernorms Discussion

I trust that the discussions regarding Cybernorms should be placed somewhere else.

According to the overarching topics for this year's IGF they were not considered to fall under the Fragmentation box and would fit better in the Cybersecurity, Cybercrime & Online Safety framing. 

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Bruna Martins dos Santos

Complement the first bullet point under Multistakeholder Part.

I trust that the following text could help complement the first bullet point under Multistakeholder participation: 

  • The Internet governance system is complex, with the involvement of an array of different bodies. Therefore, the introduction of the broader Internet Governance Ecosystem must avoid the introduction of new bodies into this already complex landscape since it can harm inclusion and proactive engagement of all stakeholders, particularly those with less financial resources.
0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Bruna Martins dos Santos

New Language and Sections to be added

Based on the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation work and 2023 draft report, i believe the following language and sections should be added: 

 

Multistakeholder participation

 

  • The Multistakeholder Approach must be protected. And that means (a) the promotion of inclusive policy making that integrates consideration of technical expertise; (b) avoiding policy interventions and regulation that would undermine technical standards setting and implementation of consensus-driven standards; and (c) supporting liaison relationships between technical internet organisations such as standards bodies, regional internet registries, ICANN, and others. 

 

Coordination to protect the Core properties of the Internet 

  • We must invest further in improving coordination between existing Internet governance bodies. Coordination and improved organisational governance measures will in turn improve the way each organisation interacts with other organisations. In that same note, existing global Internet governance bodies must engage more closely with national governments.

 

  • All stakeholders, especially Member-states, must recognise that there are critical properties of the internet/public core that require protection, even as the internet evolves. And this protection can only be achieved through multistakeholder cooperation.

 

Internet User Experience 

  • Member-States and Companies should refrain from implementing policies that could fragment the Internet user experience. Measures such as Internet Shutdowns, country-wide content takedowns and blocking orders cause negative user fragmentation and should be avoided given that the harm caused by them is principally worse than the harm they are trying to address.
0 People voted for this

Recognising the role of IP in driving internet fragmentatio

Add in as follows: 

The multistakeholder community should foster a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities surrounding content creation, access to information, the potential barriers to the knolwedge commons created by intellectual property policies, and open Internet by re-evaluating the past, envisioning the future, and engaging in constructive dialogue. 

 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

CYBERSECURITY, CYBERCRIME AND ONLINE SAFETY

 

Theme

The benefits of the Internet for economic development and social welfare cannot be fully realised without trust and security.  Consideration of these aspects is integral to the development of safe, secure access to the Internet.  It should reflect respect for human rights, openness and transparency in policymaking, and a multistakeholder approach that serves the interests of end-users. 

Cybersecurity – which seeks to protect the Internet’s infrastructure, services, applications and devices from real and potential threats – is a central challenge for Internet policy.  Cybercrime, meanwhile, poses an increasing threat to Internet users, with a long and growing list of types of harm that includes phishing, identity theft, Internet frauds, cyberstalking and online scams.  Cybersecurity and cybercrime are important and distinct areas of public policy that require serious attention and the development of expertise.

The international community should explore practical ways to mainstream cybersecurity capacity-building in broader digital development initiatives. Tensions between the desire to advance digital transformation and the need to enable effective cybersecurity pose challenges in enabling a safe, secure online environment and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.  Existing international agreements need to be translated into feasible actions.

Governments and policymakers should ensure that legal responses to criminal and terrorist use of the Internet safeguard the rule of law and human rights, take freedom of expression fully into account and demonstrate transparency and accountability.

Messages

Governance

·         Governments should recognise the value of open, security-related Internet standards and use procurement processes to make their digital and digitally-enabled systems secure by design.

·         The use of AI and machine learning may offer ways of strengthening cybersecurity and resilience. However, that use must be responsible and sustainable.  Ethical principles can provide guidelines to help cybersecurity developers and users understand, assess and consider the application of these new technologies. Such principles are best developed in global multistakeholder discussions and should emphasise human control, transparency, safety, and privacy.

·         Policy choices concerning cybersecurity, cybercrime and online safety are complex.  Encryption, for example, is for some a privacy service but for others essential to guarantee freedoms of opinion and expression as well as other human rights.  Anonymity has been a feature of much Internet activity and applications but can be abused to cause harm to other users.  Examples like these suggest the need for systems that foster accountability while protecting expression and other rights.  Layering identity levels may be one way in which such systems might develop.

·         Policy choices may have effects that extend well beyond their intended objectives and beyond the jurisdictions, countries and regions in which they are introduced.  Due to the interconnected nature of the Internet, strengthening or weakening a service in one region may have a comparable effect on all users, where the impact of policy choices is not constrained by borders. 

·         The United Nations could do more to analyse the development of standards and regulations for the assessment of emerging technologies, share knowledge and best practice, and provide a platform for multi-stakeholder exchanges on how to develop common principles for emerging technologies.  This could help to ensure that we have the right institutions in place to translate principles into binding standards and regulations.

Child safety

·         Applying a vulnerability lens across all areas of work related to digital development and internet governance is essential if we are to ensure an inclusive, safe and secure online world – particularly for children who now make up a third of global Internet users.

·         Children have the right to safe, inclusive age-appropriate digital spaces in which they can explore, learn and play.  Data, evidence and knowledge-sharing are critical to placing children's safety at the heart of global digital agendas including those concerned with cybersecurity and child online safety. 

·         Safety by design requires investment in child online safety across the entire ecosystem, with a particular focus on the capacities of low and middle income countries, as well as more upstream and collaborative action.

Gender-based violence

·         Gender-based violence online deters many women from taking full advantage of the benefits of the Internet.  Policymakers need to develop multilayered strategies to prevent and respond to technology-facilitated gender-based violence that are grounded in human rights, evidence-based and can be applied to local contexts in partnership with communities and civil society organizations. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user yoshida.miki_55532

Role of United Nations

In the sentence "The United Nations could do more to analyse the development of standards and regulations for the assessment of emerging technologies, share knowledge and best practice, and provide a platform for multi-stakeholder exchanges on how to develop common principles for emerging technologies", I was pleased to read a kind of manifestation by the UN. It will be more appealing if the concrete actions that can be taken are stated.   

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user dias.talita_54050

Gaps

The distinction between cybersecurity and cybercrime doesn’t come across very clearly. This is perhaps because there is no mention of the threat posed by malicious cyber operations carried out by State actors within the scope of cybersecurity (whereas cybercrime has been understood to cover only actions by non-State actors). At the same time, there is some overlap between cybersecurity and cybercrime and this should be mentioned explicitly. Moreover, the section omits one of the most concerning issues in cybersecurity today, namely, cyberattacks against critical infrastructure, including the healthcare sector and civilian nuclear infrastructure (which was the topic of our IGF session). Cyber operations against the nuclear sector can have catastrophic consequences for humanity, such increased radiation levels and serious environmental disasters. And the push for greener energy to power AI systems increases those risks. This is something we covered in our session which should feature in the key messages. There is also no mention in that section of the key UN forums for discussion of cybersecurity and cybercrime issues – the UN Open-Ended Working Group on information and communications technologies and the Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user dias.talita_54050

Gaps

The distinction between cybersecurity and cybercrime doesn’t come across very clearly. This is perhaps because there is no mention of the threat posed by malicious cyber operations carried out by State actors within the scope of cybersecurity (whereas cybercrime has been understood to cover only actions by non-State actors). At the same time, there is some overlap between cybersecurity and cybercrime and this should be mentioned explicitly. Moreover, the section omits one of the most concerning issues in cybersecurity today, namely, cyberattacks against critical infrastructure, including the healthcare sector and civilian nuclear infrastructure (which was the topic of our IGF session). Cyber operations against the nuclear sector can have catastrophic consequences for humanity, such as increased radiation levels and serious environmental disasters. And the push for greener energy to power AI systems increases those risks. This is something we covered in our session which should feature in the key messages. There is also no mention in that section of the key UN forums for discussion of cybersecurity and cybercrime issues – the UN Open-Ended Working Group on information and communications technologies and the Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user dias.talita_54050

Gaps

The distinction between cybersecurity and cybercrime doesn’t come across very clearly. This is perhaps because there is no mention of the threat posed by malicious cyber operations carried out by State actors within the scope of cybersecurity (whereas cybercrime has been understood to cover only actions by non-State actors). At the same time, there is some overlap between cybersecurity and cybercrime and this should be mentioned explicitly. Moreover, the section omits one of the most concerning issues in cybersecurity today, namely, cyberattacks against critical infrastructure, including the healthcare sector and civilian nuclear infrastructure (which was the topic of our IGF session). Cyber operations against the nuclear sector can have catastrophic consequences for humanity, such as increased radiation levels and serious environmental disasters. And the push for greener energy to power AI systems increases those risks. This is something we covered in our session which should feature in the key messages. There is also no mention in that section of the key UN forums for discussion of cybersecurity and cybercrime issues – the UN Open-Ended Working Group on information and communications technologies and the Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user dias.talita_54050

Gaps

The distinction between cybersecurity and cybercrime doesn’t come across very clearly. This is perhaps because there is no mention of the threat posed by malicious cyber operations carried out by State actors within the scope of cybersecurity (whereas cybercrime has been understood to cover only actions by non-State actors). At the same time, there is some overlap between cybersecurity and cybercrime and this should be mentioned explicitly. Moreover, the section omits one of the most concerning issues in cybersecurity today, namely, cyberattacks against critical infrastructure, including the healthcare sector and civilian nuclear infrastructure (which was the topic of our IGF session). Cyber operations against the nuclear sector can have catastrophic consequences for humanity, such as increased radiation levels and serious environmental disasters. And the push for greener energy to power AI systems increases those risks. This is something we covered in our session which should feature in the key messages. There is also no mention in that section of the key UN forums for discussion of cybersecurity and cybercrime issues – the UN Open-Ended Working Group on information and communications technologies and the Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes.

0 People voted for this

Fostering Online safety for all

Addressing the rising complexities of cybersecurity and online safety now demands for a multilayered approach, integrating open, security-related standards and responsible AI usage policy. Policymakers must navigate intricate decisions, balancing privacy, accountability, and human rights, ensuring policies have positive, global impacts. Child safety online is paramount, requiring inclusive, age-appropriate digital spaces, especially in vulnerable communities. Additionally, combating gender-based violence online necessitates comprehensive, evidence-based strategies rooted in human rights and local contexts calls for collaborative efforts, guided by a vulnerability lens, and fostering a safe, secure, and inclusive digital environment for all.

0 People voted for this

Coopertaion

For a more precise message, I suggest adding one sentence at the end of the third paragraph: "Representatives of the private sector should cooperate more actively with universities so that their graduates are better suited to market expectations.”.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Wout de Natris

Themes

Research shows there is a large gap between the curriculum tertiary cyber security education institutions offer and the curriculum industry and society at large demand. This gap leads to students leaving their respective programmes with insufficient knowledge and skills.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Wout de Natris

Themes

Research shows there is a large gap between the curriculum tertiary cyber security education institutions offer and the curriculum industry and society at large demand. This gap leads to students leaving their respective programmes with insufficient knowledge and skills.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Wout de Natris

Themes

Research shows there is a large gap between the curriculum tertiary cyber security education institutions offer and the curriculum industry and society at large demand. This gap leads to students leaving their respective programmes with insufficient knowledge and skills.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Wout de Natris

Cyber security themes

Research shows there is a large gap between the curriculum tertiary cyber security education institutions offer and the curriculum industry and society at large demand. This gap leads to students leaving their respective programmes with insufficient knowledge and skills.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Wout de Natris

Cyber security governance

In order to close the knowledge and skills gap in tertiary cyber security education, and to promote the work field in a more attractive way in order to attract more mid-career changers, youngsters and women, representatives of tertiary education institutions, at all levels, industry, technical community, ministries of education and students need to come together and work on a blueprint for the world. This will include an up to date curriculum, cooperation and a dissemination plan.

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Center for Global IT-Cooperation

To be added

The challenge of safeguarding children online demands enhanced utilization of data exchange mechanisms to pinpoint the localization of online content that poses a risk to minors. Moreover, there is a need to augment data sharing protocols concerning novel techniques and modalities employed by perpetrators and wrongdoers (inclusive of not only “predators” but also producers, uploaders, and intentional disseminators of harmful and perilous material).  

Further, it is imperative to persist in developing and deploying advanced technological tools for identifying and preventing fraudulent and sexually explicit content. Comprehensive measures must be taken at the nodes of destructive traffic inflows, and the application of AI technologies should be explored for more efficacious resolution of these issues.

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Center for Global IT-Cooperation

Striking balance between…

Striking balance between anonymity, freedom of expression, and user experience protection is of the utmost importance in the quest to achieve a secure and safe online environment. 

The most rational course of action entails fostering more secure applications to instill trust in accessing the network via conventional browsers, surpassing reliance on encryption software. This goal can solely be accomplished through collective endeavours of global expert community.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Valeria Betancourt

The need to develop Gender-responsive cybersecurity policies

There is an increasing recognition in international, regional and national debates about the fact that different social groups are in different positions when dealing with cybersecurity threats. However, few countries have fully integrated gender considerations into their national cybersecurity policies. At the global level, although there is consensus on the need to bridge the digital gender gap and promote diversity in cybersecurity, clear guidance on mainstreaming gender into cyber norms is still lacking. It is therefore necessary to integrate gender perspectives in cybersecurity policy at national, regional and international levels.

Gender in cybersecurity is not only a women's issue; it's intrinsically linked to power dynamics. A gender approach to cybersecurity entails recognizing the diverse risks and varied impacts, encompassing intersectional factors like race, ethnicity, religion, class, and the perceptions and practices of different groups and individuals. It embodies a comprehensive, systemic approach that integrates gender considerations at every stage of design and implementation to maximize its impact on a broader spectrum of people.
https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/framework-gender-cybersec

1 People voted for this

Child safety

Safety by design requires investment in child online safety across the entire ecosystem, with a particular focus on the capacities of low and middle income countries, as well as more upstream and collaborative action. [To be added] It is also needed to support technical initiatives which are creating a great impact regarding child online safety.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

DATA GOVERNANCE AND TRUST

Theme

Data have become critical resources in the digital age and are being generated and stored in ever-greater volumes as a result of developments in digital technology, including AI and the Internet of Things.  Existing legislative and regulatory frameworks at national, regional, and international levels are often insufficient to keep up with the pace of change in technology and applications.

Data flows are crucial to international cooperation in many fields including scientific research, law enforcement, and national and global security.  The effective use and sharing of data on a global scale can help overcome shared challenges and the threats posed by cascading crises such as pandemics and climate change.  Greater coherence is needed on a global level to achieve a balanced approach in which data work for people and the planet, including environmental sustainability.

Data can generate both commercial profit and social value.  However, the benefits of a data-driven economy have so far been unevenly distributed.  Many are concerned that individual citizens, and developing countries, have been and may remain primarily providers of data rather than beneficiaries. While the management of data is often highly concentrated, data poverty is also a significant problem, especially in local communities and among vulnerable population groups.

Lack of data privacy and inadequate data protection undermine trust in data management.  Data flows and data exchange should take place without compromising the privacy of personal data.  This can sometimes be sacrificed in the processes of data exchange, between the gathering of information and its application, with intentional and unintentional risks to trust and security.

Messages

International initiatives

·         To make the power of data work for development, we need to establish trusted and secure ways to share data across borders. Data Free Flow with Trust is now widely discussed as a framing concept for the development of international data management and cross-border data flows. 

·         Principles and practical measures are needed to develop the concept of DFFT and establish common ground for data transfer that can facilitate the leveraging of data for development while addressing concerns about data privacy and data sovereignty.  It is critical that developing countries participate fully in discussions concerning cross-border data flows and that the modalities for these reflect their needs and concerns.

·         The African Union’s Data Policy Framework has paved the way for a common continental approach to deriving strategic value for sustainable development from African data, and has shaped continental debates about more equitable data governance practices.  Implementation of the Framework at national levels will be crucial in enabling African countries to take full advantage of the opportunities from cross-border flows and digital economy development within Africa’s Free Trade Continental Area.

Data management and capacity-building

·         Governments and regulatory bodies should work together to develop and implement comprehensive privacy regulations for private surveillance in public spaces. These regulations should address data control, transparency in data sharing, and protection of human rights. Collaboration amongst stakeholders will help to ensure proper oversight and enforcement of these regulations to safeguard individual freedoms. 

·         Questions of data management, ownership and control are increasingly important.  Civil society organisations, academia, the private sector and other stakeholders should collaborate on research and advocacy efforts, with the aim of unravelling the flow of data and holding both private surveillance companies and government authorities accountable for data management.

·         Public-private data partnerships (which may require cross-border data sharing) have tangible benefits in times of discontinuity or crisis, but building trusted relationships requires time and often relies on informal relationships and intermediaries. Standard operating procedures and modalities for data interoperability would be helpful in bringing such collaboration forward.

·         It is important to develop the capacity of policymakers, regulators, civil society, private sector and other stakeholders to participate meaningfully in discussions about data management at global, regional, and national levels.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Enabling Responsible Data Ecosystems: Trust and Governance

The complexities over data governance demands agile legislative frameworks, emphasizing principles like Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT) to ensure global data sharing while safeguarding privacy and equity inviting collaborative efforts among governments, civil society, academia, and the private sector for developing transparent regulations and holding entities accountable. There is a need for establishing standard protocols for data partnerships enhances trust, enabling swift responses during crises alongside working towards comprehensive capacity-building initiatives empower diverse stakeholders, fostering informed and inclusive participation in shaping responsible data management practices globally.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user judithh12

Data and trust

Possibly rephrase the African comment as they are only one region and use it as a model for the other regions to do similarly

The African Union’s Data Policy Framework has paved the way for a common continental approach ……enabling African countries to take full advantage of the opportunities from cross-border flows and digital economy development within Africa’s Free Trade Continental Area.

Perhaps add some paragraphs stating a sentence saying that other regions can and should create similar models so that all countries in their respective regions can take advantage from cross border data flows and digital economy development

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user judithh12

Data and trust

Possibly rephrase the African comment as they are only one region and use it as a model for the other regions to do similarly

The African Union’s Data Policy Framework has paved the way for a common continental approach ……enabling African countries to take full advantage of the opportunities from cross-border flows and digital economy development within Africa’s Free Trade Continental Area.

Perhaps add some paragraphs stating a sentence saying that other regions can and should create similar models so that all countries in their respective regions can take advantage from cross border data flows and digital economy development

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

DIGITAL DIVIDES AND INCLUSION

 

Theme

It is estimated that some 2.7 billion people - or one third of the world's population – are not yet users of the Internet.  There are substantial digital divides between and within regions, countries and communities and there is a significant gender digital divide in many countries.  Groups that are disadvantaged economically, socially and educationally also tend to be disadvantaged digitally. 

Addressing these gaps in access, including the quality of access, is a central issue in building an inclusive Internet.  The goal of digital inclusion is to level up the online environment so that everyone can embrace equitable digital development and socio-economic growth. 

Meaningful access includes much more than connectivity.  ICT infrastructure alone will not bridge digital divides, nor can online inequalities be addressed without understanding and responding to their relationship with offline inequalities.  To achieve true value access must be inclusive, useful, sustainable, affordable and linked to digital literacy opportunities that respond to users’ circumstances, skills, needs and priorities.

Policies and practices to promote access need to address the risk of leaving behind the most vulnerable, including those with disabilities, minority and refugee communities, sexual and gender minorities, older people, and those living in poverty or remote and rural areas.  These communities need to be able to access goods and services both offline and online. 

Messages

Meaningful connectivity

·         As connectivity has increased, discussion of digital divides has shifted from coverage to usage, including the range of services available to users.  Meaningful universal connectivity – which can be defined as the opportunity for everyone to enjoy a safe, satisfying, enriching, productive and affordable online experience – is increasingly seen as a fundamental enabler of human rights as well as economic and social development.

·         Meaningful, universal connectivity is critical for enabling digital transformation and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Achieving it will require policymakers to embrace the concept as a policy goal, set indicators and targets for its measurement and achievement, and include it in national digital strategies, policies and implementation plans.

·         Good quality data on all aspects of universal and meaningful connectivity are essential to inform and monitor digital policies, establishing the nature and severity of digital divides and identifying priority targets for policy interventions. Steps need to be taken to ensure such data are available to policymakers.

·         Innovative policy and regulatory approaches are important in reaching unserved and underserved communities.  Non-traditional financing approaches can support and build networks, including community networks, in areas with little or no connectivity.  Libraries and other public services can provide connectivity to marginalized communities and individuals. 

Digital Inclusion

·         Overcoming digital divides requires access to be available to all within society.  Governments and businesses should take steps to ensure accessibility for those with disabilities, for those with limited literacy and language skills and other marginalised groups. 

·         To connect communities that mainly communicate in oral forms, the Internet will need to adapt or create non-text-based communications, such as audio and video files/messages, transcription of alphabets and other intuitive forms of exchange.  The online dominance of the Latin alphabet also needs to be challenged in order to facilitate access and usage by users of languages that use other alphabets. 

·         Open Education Resources (OER) have an important role to play in raising awareness and digital literacy skills.  Governments and other stakeholders should help to ensure the quality of teaching and learning experiences by providing inclusive and accessible OER.  Educational resources developed with public funds should be made available as OER, and more investment sought from both public and private sources.

·         The development of initiatives for access and inclusion must be inclusive of target communities.  Locally relevant and purpose-driven content is important for inclusion and requires incentives and funding to be sustainable, from production to distribution.

Capacity Development and leadership

·         A holistic approach to capacity development is important for achieving sustainable and meaningful connectivity.  Digital and media literacy skills are needed to enable full participation in online activity, including access to quality services and the capacity to deal with cybersecurity challenges.  Technical skills are needed to understand emerging technologies and identify useful applications.

·         ICT leadership amongst minority groups should be encouraged, reducing technology bias and improving localisation of services and products across different regions and communities.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Susan Chalmers

Suggested Edits per Workshop 297

Theme Paragraph......

...Groups that are disadvantaged economically, socially and educationally also tend to be disadvantaged digitally. Many people are unable to access the Internet in their own language. Addressing these gaps in access, including the quality of access, is a central issue in building an inclusive Internet....

Meaningful Connectivity.....

• Meaningful, universal connectivity is critical for enabling digital transformation and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Achieving it will require policymakers to embrace the concept as a policy goal, set indicators and targets for its measurement and achievement, and include it in national digital strategies, policies - including procurement policies - and implementation plans.....

 

Digital Inclusion.....

Add new, second bullet, below

  • True digital inclusion requires a multilingual Internet, and the creation of a multilingual Internet depends on Universal Acceptance. ICANN, the ITU, IGF, UNESCO, and other organizations should collaborate to promote the adoption of Unviersal Acceptance.
0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Susan Chalmers

Suggested Edits per Workshop 297

Theme Paragraph......

...Groups that are disadvantaged economically, socially and educationally also tend to be disadvantaged digitally. Many people are unable to access the Internet in their own language. Addressing these gaps in access, including the quality of access, is a central issue in building an inclusive Internet....

Meaningful Connectivity.....

• Meaningful, universal connectivity is critical for enabling digital transformation and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Achieving it will require policymakers to embrace the concept as a policy goal, set indicators and targets for its measurement and achievement, and include it in national digital strategies, policies - including procurement policies - and implementation plans.....

 

Digital Inclusion.....

Add new, second bullet, below

  • True digital inclusion requires a multilingual Internet, and the creation of a multilingual Internet depends on Universal Acceptance. ICANN, the ITU, IGF, UNESCO, and other organizations should collaborate to promote the adoption of Unviersal Acceptance.
0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Susan Chalmers

Suggested Edits per Workshop 297

Theme Paragraph......

...Groups that are disadvantaged economically, socially and educationally also tend to be disadvantaged digitally. Many people are unable to access the Internet in their own language. Addressing these gaps in access, including the quality of access, is a central issue in building an inclusive Internet....

Meaningful Connectivity.....

• Meaningful, universal connectivity is critical for enabling digital transformation and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Achieving it will require policymakers to embrace the concept as a policy goal, set indicators and targets for its measurement and achievement, and include it in national digital strategies, policies - including procurement policies - and implementation plans.....

 

Digital Inclusion.....

Add new, second bullet, below

  • True digital inclusion requires a multilingual Internet, and the creation of a multilingual Internet depends on Universal Acceptance. ICANN, the ITU, IGF, UNESCO, and other organizations should collaborate to promote the adoption of Unviersal Acceptance.
0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Susan Chalmers

Suggested Edits per Workshop 297

Theme Paragraph......

...Groups that are disadvantaged economically, socially and educationally also tend to be disadvantaged digitally. Many people are unable to access the Internet in their own language. Addressing these gaps in access, including the quality of access, is a central issue in building an inclusive Internet....

Meaningful Connectivity.....

• Meaningful, universal connectivity is critical for enabling digital transformation and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Achieving it will require policymakers to embrace the concept as a policy goal, set indicators and targets for its measurement and achievement, and include it in national digital strategies, policies - including procurement policies - and implementation plans.....

 

Digital Inclusion.....

Add new, second bullet, below

  • True digital inclusion requires a multilingual Internet, and the creation of a multilingual Internet depends on Universal Acceptance. ICANN, the ITU, IGF, UNESCO, and other organizations should collaborate to promote the adoption of Unviersal Acceptance.
0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Susan Chalmers

Suggested Edits per Workshop 297

Theme Paragraph......

...Groups that are disadvantaged economically, socially and educationally also tend to be disadvantaged digitally. Many people are unable to access the Internet in their own language. Addressing these gaps in access, including the quality of access, is a central issue in building an inclusive Internet....

Meaningful Connectivity.....

• Meaningful, universal connectivity is critical for enabling digital transformation and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Achieving it will require policymakers to embrace the concept as a policy goal, set indicators and targets for its measurement and achievement, and include it in national digital strategies, policies - including procurement policies - and implementation plans.....

 

Digital Inclusion.....

Add new, second bullet, below

  • True digital inclusion requires a multilingual Internet, and the creation of a multilingual Internet depends on Universal Acceptance. ICANN, the ITU, IGF, UNESCO, and other organizations should collaborate to promote the adoption of Unviersal Acceptance.
0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Susan Chalmers

Suggested Edits per Workshop 297

Theme Paragraph......

...Groups that are disadvantaged economically, socially and educationally also tend to be disadvantaged digitally. Many people are unable to access the Internet in their own language. Addressing these gaps in access, including the quality of access, is a central issue in building an inclusive Internet....

Meaningful Connectivity.....

• Meaningful, universal connectivity is critical for enabling digital transformation and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Achieving it will require policymakers to embrace the concept as a policy goal, set indicators and targets for its measurement and achievement, and include it in national digital strategies, policies - including procurement policies - and implementation plans.....

 

Digital Inclusion.....

Add new, second bullet, below

  • True digital inclusion requires a multilingual Internet, and the creation of a multilingual Internet depends on Universal Acceptance. ICANN, the ITU, IGF, UNESCO, and other organizations should collaborate to promote the adoption of Unviersal Acceptance.
0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Susan Chalmers

Suggested Edits per Workshop 297

Theme Paragraph......

...Groups that are disadvantaged economically, socially and educationally also tend to be disadvantaged digitally. Many people are unable to access the Internet in their own language. Addressing these gaps in access, including the quality of access, is a central issue in building an inclusive Internet....

Meaningful Connectivity.....

• Meaningful, universal connectivity is critical for enabling digital transformation and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Achieving it will require policymakers to embrace the concept as a policy goal, set indicators and targets for its measurement and achievement, and include it in national digital strategies, policies - including procurement policies - and implementation plans.....

 

Digital Inclusion.....

Add new, second bullet, below

  • True digital inclusion requires a multilingual Internet, and the creation of a multilingual Internet depends on Universal Acceptance. ICANN, the ITU, IGF, UNESCO, and other organizations should collaborate to promote the adoption of Unviersal Acceptance.
0 People voted for this

Digital Public Goods and Open source for the social sector

ICT leadership is needed to support a global platform for open-source software, open data, open AI models, and open content to help achieve the SDGs, with a focus on how governments, development organizations, and civil society can overcome discoverability challenges and provide scalable solutions that can be adapted to meet different context-specific needs through digital public goods. Particularly in tackling challenges in: locating DPGs by using specific keywords; identifying contributors to DPGs, which could be either individuals or organizations; and finding DPGs through recommendations or highlighted features in recognized online platforms.

0 People voted for this

Digital Public Goods and Open source for the social sector

ICT leadership is needed to support a global platform for open-source software, open data, open AI models, and open content to help achieve the SDGs, with a focus on how governments, development organizations, and civil society can overcome discoverability challenges and provide scalable solutions that can be adapted to meet different context-specific needs through digital public goods. Particularly in tackling challenges in: locating DPGs by using specific keywords; identifying contributors to DPGs, which could be either individuals or organizations; and finding DPGs through recommendations or highlighted features in recognized online platforms.

0 People voted for this

Bridging Digital Divides for Inclusive Connectivity and Access

The rapid digitalization has not only revolutionized the everyday life but at the same time have contributed towards creating digital divide, and addressing digital divides has became a necessity that demands for a holistic approach. Today the need for prioritizing meaningful connectivity stands essential, encompassing usability, affordability, and digital literacy. Policymakers must set clear targets, informed by quality data, and promote innovative solutions like community networks. Inclusive digital access should consider diverse linguistic needs and accessibility for marginalized groups, including those with disabilities. Investments in digital and media literacy, open educational resources, and ICT leadership among minority groups are crucial that can lead in ensuring quality and sustainable funding for educational resources is vital for fostering inclusive digital environments.

0 People voted for this

Bridging Digital Divides for Inclusive Connectivity and Access

The rapid digitalization has not only revolutionized the everyday life but at the same time have contributed towards creating digital divide, and addressing digital divides has became a necessity that demands for a holistic approach. Today the need for prioritizing meaningful connectivity stands essential, encompassing usability, affordability, and digital literacy. Policymakers must set clear targets, informed by quality data, and promote innovative solutions like community networks. Inclusive digital access should consider diverse linguistic needs and accessibility for marginalized groups, including those with disabilities. Investments in digital and media literacy, open educational resources, and ICT leadership among minority groups are crucial that can lead in ensuring quality and sustainable funding for educational resources is vital for fostering inclusive digital environments.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user judithh12

Inclusivity

Please correct the phrasing—including those with disabilities,  

should state—including persons with disabilities.

It is important to make sure we are focusing on people first.

access to be available to all within society—— there needs to be specific actions, programs, etch targeted to those most vulnerable in the populations such as persons with disabilities, women, indigenous persons.  One size all programs do not work well, programs need to be targeted to the population to be most successful, which is what meaningful connectivity focuses on.

In this paragraph —-· Good quality data on all aspects of universal and meaningful connectivity are essential to help created targeted Policies and programs to marginalized groups, which include persons with disabilities, women, indigenous and persons living in remote and rural areas, to ensure that the digital divide does not grow larger for these groups. Additionally, specific indicators should be created to track the progress in bridging the digital divides for these groups.

 

For the section on—Governments and other stakeholders should help to ensure the quality of teaching and learning experiences by providing inclusive and accessible OER.— please emphasize that teaching must also work for persons with disabilities. Often times the lessons are geared to be very visual and this is lost on persons with visual disabilities.  Educational materials should be made that can work with all persons.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user judithh12

Inclusivity

Please correct the phrasing—including those with disabilities,  

should state—including persons with disabilities.

It is important to make sure we are focusing on people first.

access to be available to all within society—— there needs to be specific actions, programs, etch targeted to those most vulnerable in the populations such as persons with disabilities, women, indigenous persons.  One size all programs do not work well, programs need to be targeted to the population to be most successful, which is what meaningful connectivity focuses on.

In this paragraph —-· Good quality data on all aspects of universal and meaningful connectivity are essential to help created targeted Policies and programs to marginalized groups, which include persons with disabilities, women, indigenous and persons living in remote and rural areas, to ensure that the digital divide does not grow larger for these groups. Additionally, specific indicators should be created to track the progress in bridging the digital divides for these groups.

 

For the section on—Governments and other stakeholders should help to ensure the quality of teaching and learning experiences by providing inclusive and accessible OER.— please emphasize that teaching must also work for persons with disabilities. Often times the lessons are geared to be very visual and this is lost on persons with visual disabilities.  Educational materials should be made that can work with all persons.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user judithh12

Inclusivity

Please correct the phrasing—including those with disabilities,  

should state—including persons with disabilities.

It is important to make sure we are focusing on people first.

access to be available to all within society—— there needs to be specific actions, programs, etch targeted to those most vulnerable in the populations such as persons with disabilities, women, indigenous persons.  One size all programs do not work well, programs need to be targeted to the population to be most successful, which is what meaningful connectivity focuses on.

In this paragraph —-· Good quality data on all aspects of universal and meaningful connectivity are essential to help created targeted Policies and programs to marginalized groups, which include persons with disabilities, women, indigenous and persons living in remote and rural areas, to ensure that the digital divide does not grow larger for these groups. Additionally, specific indicators should be created to track the progress in bridging the digital divides for these groups.

 

For the section on—Governments and other stakeholders should help to ensure the quality of teaching and learning experiences by providing inclusive and accessible OER.— please emphasize that teaching must also work for persons with disabilities. Often times the lessons are geared to be very visual and this is lost on persons with visual disabilities.  Educational materials should be made that can work with all persons.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Valeria Betancourt

Ensuring meaningful connectivity

There is the assumption that digital technologies can enable economic growth and that economic growth equals development. This is simply not true. Growth that is concentrated in urban areas and one or two sectors of the economy can face increased digital inequality. The “digital inclusion” of communities for the sole purpose of feeding into capitalist market logic worsens inequality, oppression and inequity, adding to the environmental crisis as consumption increases.  Unless people have meaningful connectivity,  investment in digitalisation will simply not provide benefit across classes, gender and regions needed for sustainable development.

0 People voted for this

Meaningful connectivity

It may need to add the example in the meaning connectivity part by giving the examples like supporting UA & other UA related initiatives.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

GLOBAL DIGITAL GOVERNANCE AND COOPERATION

 

Theme

A positive vision for the future of the Internet has to consider many different strands and values concerned with sustainable development, human rights, access and openness, transparency and the rule of law, as well as technical considerations. This can best be done in an inclusive multistakeholder manner, where the interests of all actors can be addressed.

While the Internet contributes to social, cultural and economic growth, questions of governance, accountability, trust and access persist. As the Internet cannot be dealt with from a one-dimensional perspective, collaborative, equitable and inclusive Internet governance is imperative and requires well-structured coordination and consolidation.  Dialogue between those concerned primarily with the Internet and those concerned primarily with other economic and public policy domains is essential in order to achieve best outcomes. 

Monitoring of the impacts of Internet and other digital developments is also critically important to identifying opportunities, risks and ways of addressing these that are consistent with sustainable development and human rights.

The sustainability of the Internet governance ecosystem requires the involvement and engagement of young people, who are the next generation of users, experts and leaders. Given the rapid pace of technological change, it is important to build the capacity of future generations in all countries at all levels.

Messages

Digital governance

·         Debates on digital governance increasingly recognise the symbiotic relationship between governance of the internet and broader governance of economies and societies in the digital age.  While the Internet remains a core component of the digital society, these discussions should extend to broader concerns, including the ways in which digital technologies impact society, issues such as data rights, AI ethics, and the broader digital ecosystem.  The challenges of digital governance transcend the traditional boundaries of Internet governance, and it is important to view them holistically.

·         Digital governance rests on a number of fundamental or foundation issues.  Emphasising these ensures that the digital governance ecosystem is grounded in principles that have stood the test of time.  By addressing core challenges such as data privacy, digital rights, cybersecurity and infrastructure development, the digital governance community can create a more resilient and secure foundation for the evolving digital age, which can respond more effectively to challenges of the moment.

Multistakeholder participation

·         Diverse participation promotes a comprehensive understanding of the complex issues surrounding digital governance.  Ensuring that a wide range of perspectives is represented in the digital governance dialogue is therefore crucial. This extends beyond gender, nationality and stakeholder participation to encompass a broad spectrum of voices, including those from legislative and judicial branches of government. Inclusivity should ensure that no single group dominates the conversation and that all voices are considered when shaping the future of Internet governance.

·         The multistakeholder model has been a defining characteristic of Internet governance, allowing a diverse range of stakeholders, including governments, civil society, businesses, and the technical community, to participate in decision-making, facilitating both inclusivity and collaboration and promoting a balanced and fair approach to addressing the challenges of the digital age.

·         Multistakeholder processes have seen success and increasing use over the last two decades.  The multistakeholder community has evolved since WSIS and the range of different interests represented within stakeholder grouping has increased.  It is important that Internet governance and international processes such as WSIS+20 reach beyond referencing the importance of multistakeholderism and shape modalities that include stakeholder mapping, welcome diverse participation and draw on diverse expertise.  Innovative channels for contributions should be considered, with particular emphasis on the value of broadening engagement by individuals and under-represented stakeholder groups and countries.

·         Businesses play a crucial role in the digital ecosystem.  Their involvement is vital in addressing the complex challenges and opportunities presented by the digital age.  They also have a wider responsibility to contribute to shaping digital governance, contributing expertise on issues such as cybersecurity, data governance, and digital inclusion.

·         Businesses have an interest in a stable and secure digital environment that fosters innovation and growth. While they seek profitability and market growth, they should also recognise that digital governance must also serve the broader public good.

The role of the IGF

·         The IGF's evolution from discussing solely Internet governance to addressing a wider range of digital governance issues reflects the dynamic nature of the digital age.

·         The IGF’s visibility and profile need to be raised, through an effective outreach strategy, if it is to continue serving as a hub for constructive dialogue and collaboration, attract new stakeholders and engage diverse groups in shaping the future of Internet governance.

·         To address the complex and multifaceted nature of Internet governance, entities like the IGF need adequate funding and resources.  Sufficient funding is needed to support research, operational activities and the coordination of stakeholders.  Without proper resources, critical initiatives and projects may go unrealised, impeding the development of ideas and initiatives in global digital governance.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Fostering Inclusive and Resilient Global Digital Governance

Global digital governance today demands for an inclusive, structured approach for  addressing persistent challenges in accountability, trust, and access that is possible by fostering youth involvement which is not only vital amid rapid technological changes, but also holds potential to serve as catalyst for converging on the differences. Emphasizing foundational issues like data privacy and cybersecurity creates a resilient digital governance foundation. Inclusivity, extending beyond gender and nationality, ensures diverse perspectives, while businesses must actively contribute for the broader public good. To enhance digital governance initiatives like the UN-IGF is required to ensure more increased visibility and sufficient resources, facilitating constructive dialogue and fostering innovation on a global scale. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Bruna Martins dos Santos

Main Session on the Future of Digital Governance Msgs.

1. The compromises established in the Tunis agenda still remain relevant. The Internet Governance Community should be able to conduct periodic reviews of its own mechanisms and institutions based on what was promoted by such landmark documents (i.e. Tunis Agenda, NetMundial Declaration, and so on); 

2. The Internet Governance Community and the IGF should continue to embrace diversity, this is an essential step for the future of the internet and Digital Governance; 

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Wout de Natris

The role of the IGF

"The IGF’s visibility and profile need to be raised", including the tangible outcomes IGF intersessional work contributes to this visibility, "through an effective outreach strategy"...

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Valeria Betancourt

Towards a truly inclusive global digital governance

Robust multistakeholder engagement has to be a priority for an inclusive, transparent, accountable, democratic global digital governance and cooperation. Meaningful engagement from civil society can only happen if backed up by political will and accompanying resources from governments and international community.

0 People voted for this

Theme Description

[To be added] Sustainability of the Internet infrastructure is of imperative importance & opportunity to build relationships with different stakeholders (e.g. gov and industry).

0 People voted for this

Theme Description

[To be added] Sustainability of the Internet infrastructure is of imperative importance & opportunity to build relationships with different stakeholders (e.g. gov and industry).

0 People voted for this

Theme Description

[To be added] Sustainability of the Internet infrastructure is of imperative importance & opportunity to build relationships with different stakeholders (e.g. gov and industry).

0 People voted for this

Theme Description

[To be added] Sustainability of the Internet infrastructure is of imperative importance & opportunity to build relationships with different stakeholders (e.g. gov and industry).

0 People voted for this

Digital governance

Bring together collaboration among the community, regionally or globally to support Internet development works are crucial for digital governance.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Valeria Betancourt

The nature of the internet and its governance

The Internet is not one sole thing. Looking at it as a commons and public good are not things in opposition. Similarly, looking at Internet or access to the Internet as a human right or as an enabler of other human rights, that's also not a conflict. There's synergy between these three different concepts. It  is important to recover the Internet that we initially imagined as a connector of people, as a disruptor of concentration of power, as a leveller of distributing more voice and more influence. What is at stake whether we are entering it from the commons perspective, the rights perspective, or the public good perspective, is to look at a framework that will allow us to reclaim that. If we are going make a contribution to Internet governance and encourage some kind of paradigm shift, it has to be something that is future oriented, that can address the challenges of how a technology that emerges within the public domain, for example, can then become appropriated by commercial interests. In that sense, it is important to recognise that neither the architecture of the Internet or of Internet governance, are apolitical. Recognising and working to address power dynamics is important. All in all, the different governance models, including the status quo governance models, have intended and the unintended positive and negative consequences. As we develop alternative models looking forward, we also need to look at and be aware of intended and unintended consequences.

0 People voted for this

Reference to Dynamic Coalitions

Under 'multistakeholder', add in something along the lines of: Dynamic Coalitions in particular offer a unique means of bringing together different experiences and perspectives on an ongoing basis, in a safe space, allowing internet governance to become a more reflective practice. In particular, they also make it possible to create bridges between the internet governance and other policy communities. 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

 

Theme

Access to the Internet should be accessible and safe for all.  It should respect both the civil and political and the economic, social and cultural rights set out in international rights agreements.  It is important to improve the monitoring and implementation of digital rights at all levels, building on national and global mechanisms.

The Internet provides a crucial opportunity for access to information and expression as described in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Governments should avoid recourse to Internet shutdowns because of their negative impact on both human rights and economic welfare.  The Internet also provides opportunities for enhancing rights to education, as part of broader policies for educational improvement.

Concerns are widespread about disinformation and misinformation, the use of online services for criminal activity, child abuse, hate speech and interference in election and legal processes.  Regulatory approaches to these and other challenges are under discussion in many countries and fora.  Outcomes should be consistent with the full range of human rights set out in international rights agreements.

Artificial Intelligence needs to be developed and deployed in ways that allow it to be as inclusive as possible, non-discriminatory, auditable and rooted in democratic principles, the rule of law and human rights.  Concerns are increasingly expressed about risks associated with AI, including surveillance and the automation of decision-making.  These should be addressed in multistakeholder fora in the context of sustainable development and human rights.

Messages

Governance and rights

·         Human rights and dignity should be at the centre of governance frameworks for digital technologies, including AI, addressing risks and threats in respect of data privacy and surveillance, freedom of expression and assembly, manipulation and hate speech, disinformation and misinformation.

·         Governments have the responsibility to ensure that human rights are implemented in practice, both online and offline.  To do so effectively, they need to invest in training and capacity-building of policymakers, judges and other legal professionals. 

·         Policymakers need to improve their understanding of Internet technologies, the infrastructure underpinning them, their modalities and business models if they are to make informed policy decisions and design appropriate regulatory frameworks. Greater transparency on the part of businesses and other stakeholders can help to achieve this.

·         It is important to acknowledge the interconnection of local and global issues and to ensure representation and access to digital policy discussions for those communities and sectors that will be most affected by them.

·         Technology is not confined by geographic boundaries. Laws and regulations governing the use of technology in areas such as encryption should be consistent with international standards and norms concerned with privacy, freedom of expression, due process and access to information.

Access to information

·         Discrepancies in data access (particularly in the Global South) and potential conflicts between international and local regulations limit the capacity of research, analysis and reporting about the impact that digital platforms have on society, including their impact on journalism and news media.

·         High quality journalism is an effective medium against the impact of disinformation but faces an uncertain future.  More work needs to be done to strengthen independent journalism, particularly in countries with a high incidence of disinformation.

·         Governments should avoid recourse to Internet shutdowns, which impede the free flow of information and threaten human rights and democratic processes, particularly during election periods.  While some governments lack the tools, knowledge, digital literacy and access to the wider multistakeholder community to address issues of concern through effective content moderation, shutdowns do not address the root causes that need to be addressed but undermine rights and prosperity.

·         The information space plays an increasing role in conflicts. Digital risks and restrictions on the free flow of information can harm civilians in conflict zones. Digital companies have become important actors in conflict and often find themselves in extremely challenging circumstances, having to ensure safety of staff and deal with demands made by belligerents. Alongside their responsibility to respect human rights and humanitarian law, they should be guided by the principle to minimise harm during conflict.

Misinformation and disinformation

·         Misinformation is defined as the unintentional spread of inaccurate or false information, while disinformation is deliberately falsified content specifically designed to deceive.  These pose significant challenges for public policy within society as a whole as well as in the digital sector. 

·         Governments need to work together with technology companies and civic actors around a shared set of values to address the changing nature of misinformation and disinformation as technology evolves.  Communities need to be empowered with the digital literacy tools and training to identify false content.

·         Synthetic information or content is media manipulated from its original meaning or appearance for whatever purpose.  Generative AI makes the production of synthetic information faster and easier with potentially adverse consequences for political processes, including elections, where disinformation by malicious actors can mislead and subvert democratic outcomes. 

·         A more nuanced approach to disinformation is called for, which should focus not only on social networks or digital platforms but also consider the wider media landscape.  More empirical research is needed to assess the risks of disinformation for political activity and democratic process. 

·         There is not one global solution against disinformation that works in every instance or context. It is unlikely that governments will agree on how best to address it.  However, it should be possible to work towards a common set of principles to guide policy development, building on human rights and access to information.

The role of businesses

·         Private companies can play a crucial role in securing human rights and have a responsibility to the societies in which they operate to respect rights in their business practices.  This requires careful and effective risk assessment, monitoring of their impact on human rights, and due diligence in their delivery and supply chains when designing, developing and using digital technologies, including AI. 

·         Digital businesses would benefit from greater guidance on what it means for them to respect international humanitarian law. A multistakeholder approach (including international organisations, humanitarian actors, digital companies, and human rights organisations) can help to fill gaps in understanding on how they can contribute to ensuring rights and freedoms.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Comprehensive Approach to Human Rights in Digital Governance

It is understood that ensuring human rights in digital governance demands a comprehensive approach that calls for effective bridging between the gaps of international rights agreements and their implementation. Internet shutdowns, a direct threat to information flow and democracy, should be replaced with digital literacy programs empowering citizens to combat misinformation. Addressing synthetic information threats requires nuanced policies, focusing on broader media landscapes and empirical research. Businesses, guided by international humanitarian law, must collaborate in a multi-stakeholder framework, ensuring their digital technologies respect and protect human rights globally.

0 People voted for this

Misinformation...

Add in as follows:

 Governments need to work together with technology companies and civic actors around a shared set of values to address the changing nature of misinformation and disinformation as technology evolves.  Communities need to be empowered with the digital literacy tools and training to identify false content, with community institutions, such as libraries, included in relevant strategies and given the resources necessary to deliver

0 People voted for this

Misinformation...

Add in as follows:

 Governments need to work together with technology companies and civic actors around a shared set of values to address the changing nature of misinformation and disinformation as technology evolves.  Communities need to be empowered with the digital literacy tools and training to identify false content, with community institutions, such as libraries, included in relevant strategies and given the resources necessary to deliver

0 People voted for this

Misinformation...

Add in as follows:

A more nuanced approach to disinformation is called for, which should focus not only on social networks or digital platforms but also consider the wider media landscape.  More empirical research is needed to assess the risks of disinformation for political activity and democratic process. Particular emphasis is needed on building research outside of wealthier countries.

 

0 People voted for this

Access to information

Add in as follows:

Discrepancies in data access (particularly in the Global South) and potential conflicts between international and local regulations limit the capacity of research, analysis and reporting about the impact that digital platforms have on society, including their impact on journalism and news media. Beyond news media, there is a pressing need to focus on access to information of all types, and in particular to promote the spread of equitable open science models in order both to deliver on the right to research, but also to support the development of locally relevant solutions globally.

 

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user stefan.fischer_18718

Change of Perspective - Technical Community

Digital processes should increasingly be developed from a human rights and human-centered perspective. The technical community is needed for this.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT

 

Theme

Digital technologies can contribute towards environmental protection and the mitigation of environmental harms, but also have significant adverse environmental footprints that need to be addressed.

Digitalisation can provide tools and devices that help to monitor, mitigate and adapt to climate change – for instance by using digital technologies to evaluate consequences of actions already taken, monitor emission and pollution levels, and develop new approaches in other economic sectors that will be more sustainable. Areas of beneficial application of digitalisation include (among others) environmental data, food and water systems.

However, current levels of exploitation of some scarce resources used in digital and other new technologies, including rare earth elements, are known to be unsustainable.  Extraction of resources critical for digitalisation is also associated with biodiversity loss and water stress.  At the other end of the digital lifecycle, more than 50 million tonnes of e-waste are generated globally each year, little of which is currently recycled. 

Urgent action is required concerning the digital sector’s carbon emissions, which are substantial, growing and projected to grow further as the Internet of Things and AI become more widespread.  

Environmental impacts arise at all stage of the digital lifecycle, including manufacturing, infrastructure, data storage, analysis and computation, usage by organisations and individual, and disposal.  Increased attention is being paid to the potential for a more circular digital economy, including measures to improve energy efficiency, extend the life of digital devices, foster sustainable production and consumption, encourage reuse and recycling, and recover scarce resources. 

Messages

The relationship between digitalization and the environment

·         Discussions about digital transformation and climate change are still held overwhelmingly in separate silos, and there can be misunderstanding of the links between digital technology and the environment.  It is important to make the link between digital technology and environment more widely understood, in particular by building a stronger interface between decision-making bodies concerned with digital development and environmental sustainability at both national and international levels.  The achievement of an inclusive and environmentally sustainable digital society is critical to the achievement of the SDGs. 

·         Digital and environmental transitions should be consistent and mutually sustainable, not least because digital policies that are not environmentally sustainable will not be sustainable in any other sense.   Responding to this requires progress from high-level discussion towards clear standards, regulation and action by all stakeholders.

·         Environmental experts should discuss the challenges they face with technologists in order to identify practical ways in which digital technology might facilitate sustainability.  It is important that digital approaches reflect the real circumstances in which they are to be deployed, including cost, connectivity, reliability and maintenance constraints.  What is appropriate in one context is very often inappropriate in others.

·         The IGF’s community of NRIs can play a useful part in linking digital and environmental issues at global and national levels.

Addressing environmental challenges

·         Digital technologies can contribute to better understanding of the environmental problems facing the world community.  The large volumes of data now generated by digital services and the scope and scale of AI-powered analysis can complement environmental monitoring systems to enable better targeting of policies and interventions to reduce environmental impacts and support mitigation of and adaptation to the impact of climate change.

Addressing the digital environmental footprint

·         Digital technologies have significant adverse environmental impacts which are particularly concerned with the exploitation of scarce resources, energy consumption and climate change, and the generation and dumping of electronic waste.  All stakeholders have a responsibility to minimise these impacts.  

·         The adoption of principles of environmental sustainability by stakeholders within decision-making processes will be critical to enabling a just green transition.  Such principles should be incorporated in the design of national digital strategies, business models and practices, and the design and deployment of networks, devices, applications and services.

·         Environmental responsibility in the digital sector should be increased. Efforts in greening the digital sector must reach beyond data centres to cover the entire value chain.  Governments and international bodies should collaborate to mandate responsible production, usage, and disposal of electronic devices. Penalties for non-compliance and incentives for eco-friendly practices are crucial for accountability and driving sustainability.

·         Standards play an important part in setting the framework within which digital products and services are deployed within societies.  Standard-setting bodies should consider environmental impacts in their decision-making processes, reflecting the need for products and services to reduce their use of scarce resources and minimise energy consumption and carbon emissions.  Businesses should commit to the use of environmentally responsible standards in product and service development.

A circular digital economy

·         There is increasing interest in transition towards a more circular digital economy, characterised by more efficient use of scarce resources, increased use of renewable energy and improved energy efficiency in networks and devices, more selective data storage, increased longevity and adaptability of digital devices (including repair and re-use) and better management of devices at their end of life. 

·         Recycling and recovery of scarce resources have a vital role to play in the environmental management of digitalisation.  Levels of recycling – particularly of toxic chemicals and scarce minerals – must be increased to ensure the safety of individuals and long-term security of supply, and the international trade in electronic waste should be regulated to protect the interests of recipient countries, particularly in the Global South.

·         Information on environmental choices should be easily accessible to citizens. Digital businesses should be transparent about the environmental impact of their products and services and provide information to consumers.  Governments can adopt sustainable procurement policies to encourage more sustainable product development.

AI and new technologies

·         Environmental and climate considerations need to be incorporated into the development of AI. We need to ensure that AI does not create more problems than it solves and mitigate its impact on climate. The environmental efficiency of AI should be carefully and transparently evaluated. Capacity-building, information-sharing and support for sustainable, local AI ecosystems should be promoted.

·         Governments and the private sector should fund research in renewable energy, eco-friendly hardware and efficient cable-laying and satellite deployment. Financial support and incentives can fuel the development of impactful, environmentally conscious approaches, paving the way for a greener digital future.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Digital Sustainability: A unified approach

Addressing the intersection of digital technology and environmental sustainability is imperative , in this current disjointed discussions between digital transformation and climate change where it stands crucial to establish interdisciplinary forums that can lead in framing of stringent regulations for curbing the unsustainable exploitation of scarce resources and promote responsible e-waste management, bringing clear, enforceable standards and transparent disclosure of environmental footprints by digital businesses.

1 People voted for this

Digital Sustainability: A unified approach

Addressing the intersection of digital technology and environmental sustainability is imperative , in this current disjointed discussions between digital transformation and climate change where it stands crucial to establish interdisciplinary forums that can lead in framing of stringent regulations for curbing the unsustainable exploitation of scarce resources and promote responsible e-waste management, bringing clear, enforceable standards and transparent disclosure of environmental footprints by digital businesses.

0 People voted for this

Digital Sustainability: A unified approach

Addressing the intersection of digital technology and environmental sustainability is imperative , in this current disjointed discussions between digital transformation and climate change where it stands crucial to establish interdisciplinary forums that can lead in framing of stringent regulations for curbing the unsustainable exploitation of scarce resources and promote responsible e-waste management, bringing clear, enforceable standards and transparent disclosure of environmental footprints by digital businesses.

1 People voted for this

Digital Sustainability: A unified approach

Addressing the intersection of digital technology and environmental sustainability is imperative , in this current disjointed discussions between digital transformation and climate change where it stands crucial to establish interdisciplinary forums that can lead in framing of stringent regulations for curbing the unsustainable exploitation of scarce resources and promote responsible e-waste management, bringing clear, enforceable standards and transparent disclosure of environmental footprints by digital businesses.

0 People voted for this

The relationship between digitalization and the environment

More than that, it is needed to encourage for better understanding about environmental-related measurements to different stakeholders.

0 People voted for this

The relationship between digitalization and the environment

More than that, it is needed to encourage for better understanding about environmental-related measurements to different stakeholders.

0 People voted for this

The relationship between digitalization and the environment

More than that, it is needed to encourage for better understanding about environmental-related measurements to different stakeholders.

0 People voted for this

The relationship between digitalization and the environment

More than that, it is needed to encourage for better understanding about environmental-related measurements to different stakeholders.

0 People voted for this

The relationship between digitalization and the environment

More than that, it is needed to encourage for better understanding about environmental-related measurements to different stakeholders.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Valeria Betancourt

Cooperative approaches to transforming technology for the planet

When it comes to approaches to transforming technology frameworks for the planet, it is necessary to emphasizing the critical importance of participation and accountability in cooperative models to technology. Care should be put at the center of business models using approaches that are rooted in feminism, solidarity, and collective care. Collectively ownership, governance and maintenance of autonomous infrastructure is critical for environmental sustainability. Digitalisation can not be dissociated from a holistic approach to address the root causes of the complex problems facing the world today. It is crucial for all stakeholders not to get distracted by technologies and tools that on the surface seem promising for mitigating and adapting to climate change, but have proven to be quite harmful for communities around the world. Robust and community-led accountability mechanisms, support for environmental defenders, and shifting perspectives and narratives towards more technology frameworks that prioritize collective care are needed.

1 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Dynamic Coalitions

Dynamic Coalitions Anonymous Wed, 26/07/2023 - 14:38
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety (IS3C)

Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety (IS3C) mallory Wed, 26/07/2023 - 14:33

Procurement and Supply Chain Management and the Business Case

By Liz Orembo and Mallory Knodel (email authors)

This draft report aims to document existing policy requirements for public sector procurement contracts and supply chain management of digital technologies and asks whether security-related technical standards are mentioned. It highlights emerging best practice and gaps in an effort to provide high-level guidance at the global level on how procurement plays a role in improving the security and safety of the global internet for all. We close with discussion and suggestions for future work. The document’s current status is open to feedback.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user carolroach_242

1.   "It involves activities…

1.   "It involves activities such as identifying suppliers, negotiating contracts, and managing the purchase and delivery of digital technologies.".  Big part of procurement and supply is "Understanding the needs and High Level Specifications", this step sets the stage for your procurement and supply.   See CIPS (Certified Institute Proceument and Supply)

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user carolroach_242

1.   "It involves activities…

1.   "It involves activities such as identifying suppliers, negotiating contracts, and managing the purchase and delivery of digital technologies.".  Big part of procurement and supply is "Understanding the needs and High Level Specifications", this step sets the stage for your procurement and supply.   See CIPS (Certified Institute Proceument and Supply)

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user carolroach_242

1.   "It involves activities…

1.   "It involves activities such as identifying suppliers, negotiating contracts, and managing the purchase and delivery of digital technologies.".  Big part of procurement and supply is "Understanding the needs and High Level Specifications", this step sets the stage for your procurement and supply.   See CIPS (Certified Institute Proceument and Supply)

2 "In the context of internet technologies, we are concerned with the procurement, supply chain management and security standards therein". Contract Performance and Review is important to ensure supplier is meeting KPIs and honoring SLAs.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user carolroach_242

1.   "It involves activities…

1.   "It involves activities such as identifying suppliers, negotiating contracts, and managing the purchase and delivery of digital technologies.".  Big part of procurement and supply is "Understanding the needs and High Level Specifications", this step sets the stage for your procurement and supply.   See CIPS (Certified Institute Proceument and Supply)

2 "In the context of internet technologies, we are concerned with the procurement, supply chain management and security standards therein". Contract Performance and Review is important to ensure supplier is meeting KPIs and honoring SLAs.

3. "By adopting efficient procurement practices, organisations can optimise their resource allocation and enhance their operational capabilities in the digital domain." More importantly is improves customer trust and loyalty, cost savings (doing right the first time to avoid rework or a redo), reduce risk (procure a product best fit for purpose)

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user carolroach_242

1.   "It involves activities…

1.   "It involves activities such as identifying suppliers, negotiating contracts, and managing the purchase and delivery of digital technologies.".  Big part of procurement and supply is "Understanding the needs and High Level Specifications", this step sets the stage for your procurement and supply.   See CIPS (Certified Institute Proceument and Supply)

2 "In the context of internet technologies, we are concerned with the procurement, supply chain management and security standards therein". Contract Performance and Review is important to ensure supplier is meeting KPIs and honoring SLAs.

3. "By adopting efficient procurement practices, organisations can optimise their resource allocation and enhance their operational capabilities in the digital domain." More importantly is improves customer trust and loyalty, cost savings (doing right the first time to avoid rework or a redo), reduce risk (procure a product best fit for purpose)

4. Having security standards helps organizations to create "conformance specifications" where suppliers would understand and be familiar with requirements; no ambiguity.  The procurement department in collaboration with technical/business experts can better identify suppliers for the tender process and suppliers will know whether or not they are a good fit.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user carolroach_242

1.   "It involves activities…

1.   "It involves activities such as identifying suppliers, negotiating contracts, and managing the purchase and delivery of digital technologies.".  Big part of procurement and supply is "Understanding the needs and High Level Specifications", this step sets the stage for your procurement and supply.   See CIPS (Certified Institute Proceument and Supply)

2 "In the context of internet technologies, we are concerned with the procurement, supply chain management and security standards therein". Contract Performance and Review is important to ensure supplier is meeting KPIs and honoring SLAs.

3. "By adopting efficient procurement practices, organisations can optimise their resource allocation and enhance their operational capabilities in the digital domain." More importantly is improves customer trust and loyalty, cost savings (doing right the first time to avoid rework or a redo), reduce risk (procure a product best fit for purpose)

4. Having security standards helps organizations to create "conformance specifications" where suppliers would understand and be familiar with requirements; no ambiguity.  The procurement department in collaboration with technical/business experts can better identify suppliers for the tender process and suppliers will know whether or not they are a good fit.

5."Supply chain management".  Suggest mentioning supplier Code of Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in this section.  Part of buyer due diligence.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user carolroach_242

1.   "It involves activities…

1.   "It involves activities such as identifying suppliers, negotiating contracts, and managing the purchase and delivery of digital technologies.".  Big part of procurement and supply is "Understanding the needs and High Level Specifications", this step sets the stage for your procurement and supply.   See CIPS (Certified Institute Proceument and Supply)

2 "In the context of internet technologies, we are concerned with the procurement, supply chain management and security standards therein". Contract Performance and Review is important to ensure supplier is meeting KPIs and honoring SLAs.

3. "By adopting efficient procurement practices, organisations can optimise their resource allocation and enhance their operational capabilities in the digital domain." More importantly is improves customer trust and loyalty, cost savings (doing right the first time to avoid rework or a redo), reduce risk (procure a product best fit for purpose)

4. Having security standards helps organizations to create "conformance specifications" where suppliers would understand and be familiar with requirements; no ambiguity.  The procurement department in collaboration with technical/business experts can better identify suppliers for the tender process and suppliers will know whether or not they are a good fit.

5."Supply chain management".  Suggest mentioning supplier Code of Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in this section.  Part of buyer due diligence.

6."Technology standards are a set of specifications and processes that are developed to achieve purposes such as interoperability...".  Suggestion: technology standards are a set of functional specifications ....

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user carolroach_242

1.   "It involves activities…

1.   "It involves activities such as identifying suppliers, negotiating contracts, and managing the purchase and delivery of digital technologies.".  Big part of procurement and supply is "Understanding the needs and High Level Specifications", this step sets the stage for your procurement and supply.   See CIPS (Certified Institute Proceument and Supply)

2 "In the context of internet technologies, we are concerned with the procurement, supply chain management and security standards therein". Contract Performance and Review is important to ensure supplier is meeting KPIs and honoring SLAs.

3. "By adopting efficient procurement practices, organisations can optimise their resource allocation and enhance their operational capabilities in the digital domain." More importantly is improves customer trust and loyalty, cost savings (doing right the first time to avoid rework or a redo), reduce risk (procure a product best fit for purpose)

4. Having security standards helps organizations to create "conformance specifications" where suppliers would understand and be familiar with requirements; no ambiguity.  The procurement department in collaboration with technical/business experts can better identify suppliers for the tender process and suppliers will know whether or not they are a good fit.

5."Supply chain management".  Suggest mentioning supplier Code of Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in this section.  Part of buyer due diligence.

6."Technology standards are a set of specifications and processes that are developed to achieve purposes such as interoperability...".  Suggestion: technology standards are a set of functional specifications ....

7. "standards development organisations (SDOs) cover technical cybersecurity include the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), US National Institute of Standards and Technology, Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP), and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)." Is there a reason why ISO isnt mentioned?

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user carolroach_242

1.   "It involves activities…

1.   "It involves activities such as identifying suppliers, negotiating contracts, and managing the purchase and delivery of digital technologies.".  Big part of procurement and supply is "Understanding the needs and High Level Specifications", this step sets the stage for your procurement and supply.   See CIPS (Certified Institute Proceument and Supply)

2 "In the context of internet technologies, we are concerned with the procurement, supply chain management and security standards therein". Contract Performance and Review is important to ensure supplier is meeting KPIs and honoring SLAs.

3. "By adopting efficient procurement practices, organisations can optimise their resource allocation and enhance their operational capabilities in the digital domain." More importantly is improves customer trust and loyalty, cost savings (doing right the first time to avoid rework or a redo), reduce risk (procure a product best fit for purpose)

4. Having security standards helps organizations to create "conformance specifications" where suppliers would understand and be familiar with requirements; no ambiguity.  The procurement department in collaboration with technical/business experts can better identify suppliers for the tender process and suppliers will know whether or not they are a good fit.

5."Supply chain management".  Suggest mentioning supplier Code of Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in this section.  Part of buyer due diligence.

6."Technology standards are a set of specifications and processes that are developed to achieve purposes such as interoperability...".  Suggestion: technology standards are a set of functional specifications ....

7. "standards development organisations (SDOs) cover technical cybersecurity include the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), US National Institute of Standards and Technology, Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP), and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)." Is there a reason why ISO isnt mentioned?

8. "the technical specifications shall, to the extent compatible with national requirements, be based on international standards or standards widely used in international trade." From govt of the Bahamas Public Procurement Act (2021).  https://laws.bahamas.gov.bs/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2021/2021-…;

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user carolroach_242

1.   "It involves activities…

1.   "It involves activities such as identifying suppliers, negotiating contracts, and managing the purchase and delivery of digital technologies.".  Big part of procurement and supply is "Understanding the needs and High Level Specifications", this step sets the stage for your procurement and supply.   See CIPS (Certified Institute Proceument and Supply)

2 "In the context of internet technologies, we are concerned with the procurement, supply chain management and security standards therein". Contract Performance and Review is important to ensure supplier is meeting KPIs and honoring SLAs.

3. "By adopting efficient procurement practices, organisations can optimise their resource allocation and enhance their operational capabilities in the digital domain." More importantly is improves customer trust and loyalty, cost savings (doing right the first time to avoid rework or a redo), reduce risk (procure a product best fit for purpose)

4. Having security standards helps organizations to create "conformance specifications" where suppliers would understand and be familiar with requirements; no ambiguity.  The procurement department in collaboration with technical/business experts can better identify suppliers for the tender process and suppliers will know whether or not they are a good fit.

5."Supply chain management".  Suggest mentioning supplier Code of Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in this section.  Part of buyer due diligence.

6."Technology standards are a set of specifications and processes that are developed to achieve purposes such as interoperability...".  Suggestion: technology standards are a set of functional specifications ....

7. "standards development organisations (SDOs) cover technical cybersecurity include the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), US National Institute of Standards and Technology, Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP), and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)." Is there a reason why ISO isnt mentioned?

8. "the technical specifications shall, to the extent compatible with national requirements, be based on international standards or standards widely used in international trade." From govt of the Bahamas Public Procurement Act (2021).  https://laws.bahamas.gov.bs/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2021/2021-…;

 

General comment.  I thought the report would focus on the procurement and supply process or cycle but instead it was about standards.  Example. Gartner group provide toolkits that help with development of specifications for different ICT products, services, and works.  Also, the intro speaks to supplier management but the report does not zero in on this.  Procurement and supply should be a discussion beyond standards.  Supplier selection with inclusion of ethics is critical.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user carolroach_242

Comments on full report.

1.   "It involves activities such as identifying suppliers, negotiating contracts, and managing the purchase and delivery of digital technologies.".  Big part of procurement and supply is "Understanding the needs and High Level Specifications", this step sets the stage for your procurement and supply.   See CIPS (Certified Institute Proceument and Supply)

2 "In the context of internet technologies, we are concerned with the procurement, supply chain management and security standards therein". Contract Performance and Review is important to ensure supplier is meeting KPIs and honoring SLAs.

3. "By adopting efficient procurement practices, organisations can optimise their resource allocation and enhance their operational capabilities in the digital domain." More importantly is improves customer trust and loyalty, cost savings (doing right the first time to avoid rework or a redo), reduce risk (procure a product best fit for purpose)

4. Having security standards helps organizations to create "conformance specifications" where suppliers would understand and be familiar with requirements; no ambiguity.  The procurement department in collaboration with technical/business experts can better identify suppliers for the tender process and suppliers will know whether or not they are a good fit.

5."Supply chain management".  Suggest mentioning supplier Code of Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in this section.  Part of buyer due diligence.

6."Technology standards are a set of specifications and processes that are developed to achieve purposes such as interoperability...".  Suggestion: technology standards are a set of functional specifications ....

7. "standards development organisations (SDOs) cover technical cybersecurity include the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), US National Institute of Standards and Technology, Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP), and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)." Is there a reason why ISO isnt mentioned?

8. "the technical specifications shall, to the extent compatible with national requirements, be based on international standards or standards widely used in international trade." From govt of the Bahamas Public Procurement Act (2021).  https://laws.bahamas.gov.bs/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2021/2021-…;

 

General comment.  I thought the report would focus on the procurement and supply process or cycle but instead it was about standards.  Example. Gartner group provide toolkits that help with development of specifications for different ICT products, services, and works.  Also, the intro speaks to supplier management but the report does not zero in on this.  Procurement and supply should be a discussion beyond standards.  Supplier selection with inclusion of ethics is critical.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user prince.zutah

Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Enhancing Cybersecurity

In an increasingly interconnected world, the draft "Exploring the Role of Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Enhancing Cybersecurity Practices" delves into the vital relationship between global internet governance, cybersecurity, and procurement processes. With the proliferation of networked products and services susceptible to security threats, the authors emphasize the need for robust cybersecurity standards and best practices adoption worldwide.

The draft casts a spotlight on the Internet Governance Forum's (IGF) Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security, and Safety (IS3C) as a commendable initiative to bolster online security. By focusing on three core areas – Security by design, Education and skills, and Procurement and business models – the IS3C aims to foster collaborative efforts among governments, industry players, civil society, and academia. This multi-stakeholder approach, facilitated by open and inclusive processes, is proposed as a means to shift normative practices in cybersecurity and enhance overall risk mitigation.

Drawing on a global survey of procurement guidance, the study scrutinizes how cybersecurity standards are integrated into procurement practices. Categorizing findings through the lens of the US NIST's cybersecurity framework, the authors uncover trends and gaps in existing policies. The draft underscores that, despite the existence of cybersecurity standards, their practical integration into procurement strategies remains a challenge, particularly in promoting widespread awareness and adherence.

The authors propose a valuable solution – a best practice toolkit – to bridge the gap between cybersecurity standards and procurement practices. This toolkit, designed to guide decision-makers, could potentially harmonize international standards with national cybersecurity strategies and regional policies. By encouraging coordination among industry, public agencies, and standards bodies, the draft envisions a more secure online landscape.

In conclusion, the draft contributes a nuanced understanding of the intricate interplay between global governance, cybersecurity, and procurement practices. It showcases the potential of multi-stakeholder collaborations, exemplified by IS3C, to bolster cybersecurity efforts. As societies become increasingly digital, the insights presented in this draft call for sustained and cooperative endeavors to enhance cybersecurity across the board.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user prince.zutah

Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Enhancing Cybersecurity

In an increasingly interconnected world, the draft "Exploring the Role of Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Enhancing Cybersecurity Practices" delves into the vital relationship between global internet governance, cybersecurity, and procurement processes. With the proliferation of networked products and services susceptible to security threats, the authors emphasize the need for robust cybersecurity standards and best practices adoption worldwide.

The draft casts a spotlight on the Internet Governance Forum's (IGF) Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security, and Safety (IS3C) as a commendable initiative to bolster online security. By focusing on three core areas – Security by design, Education and skills, and Procurement and business models – the IS3C aims to foster collaborative efforts among governments, industry players, civil society, and academia. This multi-stakeholder approach, facilitated by open and inclusive processes, is proposed as a means to shift normative practices in cybersecurity and enhance overall risk mitigation.

Drawing on a global survey of procurement guidance, the study scrutinizes how cybersecurity standards are integrated into procurement practices. Categorizing findings through the lens of the US NIST's cybersecurity framework, the authors uncover trends and gaps in existing policies. The draft underscores that, despite the existence of cybersecurity standards, their practical integration into procurement strategies remains a challenge, particularly in promoting widespread awareness and adherence.

The authors propose a valuable solution – a best practice toolkit – to bridge the gap between cybersecurity standards and procurement practices. This toolkit, designed to guide decision-makers, could potentially harmonize international standards with national cybersecurity strategies and regional policies. By encouraging coordination among industry, public agencies, and standards bodies, the draft envisions a more secure online landscape.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user prince.zutah

Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Enhancing Cybersecurity

In an increasingly interconnected world, the draft "Exploring the Role of Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Enhancing Cybersecurity Practices" delves into the vital relationship between global internet governance, cybersecurity, and procurement processes. With the proliferation of networked products and services susceptible to security threats, the authors emphasize the need for robust cybersecurity standards and best practices adoption worldwide.

The draft casts a spotlight on the Internet Governance Forum's (IGF) Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security, and Safety (IS3C) as a commendable initiative to bolster online security. By focusing on three core areas – Security by design, Education and skills, and Procurement and business models – the IS3C aims to foster collaborative efforts among governments, industry players, civil society, and academia. This multi-stakeholder approach, facilitated by open and inclusive processes, is proposed as a means to shift normative practices in cybersecurity and enhance overall risk mitigation.

Drawing on a global survey of procurement guidance, the study scrutinizes how cybersecurity standards are integrated into procurement practices. Categorizing findings through the lens of the US NIST's cybersecurity framework, the authors uncover trends and gaps in existing policies. The draft underscores that, despite the existence of cybersecurity standards, their practical integration into procurement strategies remains a challenge, particularly in promoting widespread awareness and adherence.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user prince.zutah

Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Enhancing Cybersecurity

In an increasingly interconnected world, the draft "Exploring the Role of Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Enhancing Cybersecurity Practices" delves into the vital relationship between global internet governance, cybersecurity, and procurement processes. With the proliferation of networked products and services susceptible to security threats, the authors emphasize the need for robust cybersecurity standards and best practices adoption worldwide.

The draft casts a spotlight on the Internet Governance Forum's (IGF) Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security, and Safety (IS3C) as a commendable initiative to bolster online security. By focusing on three core areas – Security by design, Education and skills, and Procurement and business models – the IS3C aims to foster collaborative efforts among governments, industry players, civil society, and academia. This multi-stakeholder approach, facilitated by open and inclusive processes, is proposed as a means to shift normative practices in cybersecurity and enhance overall risk mitigation.

0 People voted for this

Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety (IS

The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security, and Safety (IS3C) plays a crucial role in fostering collaboration and addressing challenges related to online standards and security. Its efforts contribute significantly to creating a safer and more secure digital environment for users worldwide. https://fmapps.org/

0 People voted for this

Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety (IS

The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security, and Safety (IS3C) plays a crucial role in fostering collaboration and addressing challenges related to online standards and security. Its efforts contribute significantly to creating a safer and more secure digital environment for users worldwide. https://fmapps.org/

0 People voted for this

Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety (IS

The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security, and Safety (IS3C) plays a crucial role in fostering collaboration and addressing challenges related to online standards and security. Its efforts contribute significantly to creating a safer and more secure digital environment for users worldwide. https://fmapps.org/

0 People voted for this

Background: Global governance

Internet and ICT security is an issue that is high on the agenda of governments, industry and individuals alike. Many networked products and services are increasingly vulnerable to security threats and the spread of online harms and criminal misuse. A massive cybersecurity industry sells products, services and insurance to governments and the private sector to mitigate cybersecurity incidents. However, prevention and the reduction of overall risk can be achieved if relevant security-related standards and best practices are more effectively adopted and deployed worldwide.

 

Global internet governance provides an opportunity to shift normative practice in cybersecurity. Governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community and academia tackle contemporary issues through open and inclusive processes. Since 2006 the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) provides a non-binding, multi-stakeholder space for policy dialogue on internet governance issues under the auspices of the United Nations. One such process of the IGF is that of the Dynamic Coalition (DC). DCs are long-term intersessional groups dedicated to an internet governance issue or set of issues.

 

The IGF Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety (IS3C) brings together key stakeholders with the shared goal of making online activity more secure and safer. The current work of the IS3C focuses on three areas in order to achieve this goal: Security by design; Education and skills; and Procurement and business models. These areas of work set a foundation for the IS3C joint work that aims to consider both demand and supply factors in order to propose the best options, deployed as key standards. Standards, in this case, are essentially policy recommendations for decision makers to take forward.

 

The third working group of the IS3C (WG3) envisions the development of policy recommendations such as on the procurement of digital technologies. Ensuring procurement best practice takes into account internet security and safety requirements, and that this is included in procurement training, in particular in developing countries.

 

To that end this worldwide survey of procurement guidance amplifies existing work and processes. The report begins with an introduction, providing background information, research objectives, and an overview of the methodology. The methods section follows, detailing the approach, tools, and techniques used in the study. The findings section presents the results and outcomes, including data analysis and relevant visual representations. The conclusions and future work section summarises the key findings, discusses their implications, and suggests potential areas for further research. The acknowledgements section acknowledges individuals or organisations that contributed to the study. Finally, the annex provides supplementary information, such as raw data, additional figures, or detailed calculations.

Terminology: Procurement contracts and supply chain management

In the context of internet technologies, we are concerned with the procurement, supply chain management and security standards therein.

 

Procurement, in the context of digital technologies, refers to the process of acquiring goods, services, or solutions from external sources to meet the needs and requirements of an organisation. It involves activities such as identifying suppliers, negotiating contracts, and managing the purchase and delivery of digital technologies. Effective procurement strategies ensure that organisations obtain high-quality products or services at competitive prices, within specified timelines, and with favourable terms and conditions. By adopting efficient procurement practices, organisations can optimise their resource allocation and enhance their operational capabilities in the digital domain.

 

Supply chain management plays a crucial role in the procurement of digital technologies. It encompasses the coordination and integration of various activities involved in sourcing, procurement, production, and distribution of goods or services. In the context of digital technologies, supply chain management focuses on ensuring a seamless flow of products, information, and resources across the supply chain network. It involves managing relationships with suppliers, monitoring inventory levels, mitigating risks, and optimising logistics and transportation. Effective supply chain management in digital technology procurement can result in improved efficiency, reduced costs, enhanced customer satisfaction, and greater agility in responding to market demands.

 

Security standards are critical in the procurement of digital technologies due to the increasing importance of protecting sensitive information, systems, and networks from cyber threats. Security standards provide guidelines, best practices, and frameworks that organisations should adhere to when procuring and implementing digital technologies. These standards ensure that the procured technologies meet specified security requirements, protect against vulnerabilities, and safeguard critical assets. Compliance with security standards helps organisations mitigate risks, prevent data breaches, and maintain the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of their digital infrastructure.

Methods: Global survey of procurement guidance

With this framing and these definitions in mind, we seek to find a connection on the influence of procurement on the security of the internet as a public infrastructure. 

 

The aim of this research is to document what has been done by others and identify actionable areas for developing guidance and future research. First, we conducted basic desk research to answer “What has been done by others on procurement and supply chain management guidance”? Then, we developed a decision matrix to narrow in on global institutions within the UN IGF’s sphere of influence and impact to choose which cases to include in our research. We then collected and documented existing procurement and supply chain policies of those institutions. An outreach exercise to request for government and regional bodies procurement documents reached more than 2000 industry players, and governments. We received relevant documents from the IS3C working group members and the IGF community at large, and where required, we conducted interviews to get more insights into some of the documents.

 

For each document we reviewed, we asked the following research questions:

  1. What has been published on procurement and cybersecurity standards already? 
  2. Are there any companies that publish their procurement and supply chain policies?
  3. What procurement policy/documents focus on internet and digital comms?

 

When searching for new primary sources, we ask, “What are the multilateral fora that publish best practice related to supply chain and procurement?” We sifted the data on existing and previous initiatives to identify a) common elements of best practice; b) shared problems barriers; and c) global north and Global South applicability. We also identify gaps for future research needed to inform sound policy guidance in the second phase, or potentially in place of it.

Findings: Security standards in technology procurement policies

Technology standards are a set of specifications and processes that are developed to achieve purposes such as interoperability, better coordination and cybersecurity. Open standards have existed to serve public interests: such as to protect internet infrastructure and organisations through no cost, or low cost implementation, provide better security safeguards for users and  promote wider coordination in maintaining cyber resilience. The “open” in open security standards means that the process of developing these standards are open for participation by any stakeholder and that the standards are freely published for everyone to access.

 

Much of the evolution of the internet has been based on layered, open technology standards, with the vision of the internet being open for end innovation by any players across the globe. While the early developments of the internet did not put much, if any, emphasis on security. As Vint Cerf explains:

 

“Four decades ago, when Bob Kahn and I were creating the TCP/IP networking protocol for the internet, we did not know that we were laying the tracks for what would become the digital superhighway that powers everything in society from modern business to interpersonal relationships”].

 

This has changed. The threats posed by attacks on and abuse of the internet and ICTs over the last two decades have underscored the need to develop cybersecurity standards to promote and maintain an internet architecture that is secure for everyone to use by design. A wide array of standards development organisations (SDOs) cover technical cybersecurity include the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), US National Institute of Standards and Technology, Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP), and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Policy standards are developed by regional bodies such as the European Union and African Union, and through international cooperation: countries coming together to develop and harmonise laws to facilitate coordination of cybersecurity measures across borders.

 

Successful standards are measured by how wide they are used across geographies and industries. In this study, we ask how national governments and regional bodies use open cybersecurity standards through the analysis of public procurement policy documents.

 

We find policy documents regarding cybersecurity and procurement to be concentrated in the Global North. This does not mean that these regions do have cybersecurity policies that apply in procuring goods, but it could mean that these documents are either not online or not searchable by the search engines. But more noteworthy, it could also mean that not much work has been done to enhance cybersecurity during procurement of goods and services. Although direct use and reference to the international cybersecurity standards are missing in most of the documents we analysed, these documents, as national or regional guidelines, provide some sort of standardisation. For example requiring that service providers should follow standards in the EU’s Global Data Protection Regulation and International Organization for Standardization standards. 

 

Mapping cybersecurity standards to identify areas that have been less covered is a futile exercise because of its wide scope. Every industry will have its own standards and therefore it is hard to exhaust the list of all standards. In this literature review, we instead analyse the security standards elements in procurement documents to uncover how public bodies have relied on the existence of open standards to enhance cybersecurity in the procurement of ICT products. To map out the trends and areas of focus, we organise the literature according to the US’s National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (US NIST) five core cybersecurity functions: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond and Recover. This framework builds an actionable and robust cybersecurity legal and technical model for organisations and businesses and US NIST standards are the most widely adopted cybersecurity standards. Fifty-eight percent of respondents in a 2018 study conducted by HIMSS (2018), adopted the US NIST framework for their own cybersecurity policy and standards. The US NIST standards provide a holistic framework of cybersecurity resilience, including technical, administrative and government related standardisation. This helps us map out the trends on cybersecurity standardisations across these functions of cybersecurity resilience.

  1. Identify 

Under the US NIST framework, the ‘identify’ function is the first action that lays the groundwork for the other core functions. It entails developing an understanding of the organisation and its cybersecurity resilience and maturity, as well as understanding how the cybersecurity risks relate and would affect core functions of the organisation. Activities in this stage include assessments of assets, governance frameworks, and people’s understanding of cybersecurity within the organisation. In principle, all awareness raising documents fall in this category, but perhaps a leading example of awareness raising of cybersecurity standards is the US NIST (2018) document mapping IoT security standards among the US public and public agencies, highlighting their status of implementation. It not only promotes the use of already established standards, but also encourages government agencies to participate in international standards development bodies based on their missions and cite the appropriate standards in their procurement. At a national level, the guidance directs government agencies to work with industry to support the development of appropriate conformity schemes to the requirements in such standards. 

 

Another example is the UK government publication, that is meant to guide organisations through the identify process, help them understand what needs to be protected and why, know their suppliers, understand security risks posed by their supply chain, communicate their view of security needs, raise awareness, provide support for security incidents, and build assurance activities into management approach, encourage continuous improvement, and build trust with suppliers (UK Government, 2018). 

 

Regionally, while documenting good practices for cybersecurity in procurement, European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) provides a good example on using open standards in mapping of ICT procurement in healthcare. In this document, ENISA has recommended the ISO 2700 family for security protocols that include; clinical information systems, remote care systems, and identification systems. Other standards included in the document as best practice are the OWASP, and global policy frameworks such as the GDPR, and European National Cybersecurity policy frameworks.

 

Many procurement and cybersecurity awareness guidance documents have also encouraged periodical and wholesome assessments of systems. For example, the guidelines for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (2022) advise that in procurement, the supplier should allow the client to be able to make their own independent security audit  and penetration testing.

 

On the supply chain management, the identify functions entails identifying risks from suppliers and their products, including third party suppliers, through periodical evaluation. A good example here is a guide by the New Zealand government which aims to help businesses leaders and cybersecurity professionals to identify supply chain entities and supplier management processes, assess the cyber threat landscape and determine which suppliers are most critical to establish effective processes for managing supply chain risk. (New Zealand Government, n.d.)

  1. Protect

The ‘protect’ function involves setting measures to limit or contain potential cybersecurity risks. Functions under this category may include organisation and country policy development, training and awareness raising, putting measures for protecting data, and maintenance. 

 

Various government documents on chain management have called for an enabling policy environment so that organisations are able to protect themselves and respond to attacks. For example, requiring suppliers from foreign countries to adhere to regulations such as the Budapest Convention, facilitates coordination at a regional level. The Taiwanese Government Procurement Act (2019) requires that the procurement of ICT products and services from foreign entities and their implementation should follow international treaties that Taiwan is party to, and creates avenues for coordination between government agencies when it comes to procurement concerning national security. For example, it provides for consultation with relevant government agencies when procurement touches on matters of national security. This presents an opportunity for open standards bodies to integrate these international standards into their work, and encourage countries and regions to harmonise policies to facilitate such coordination in protecting systems. Of course the downside of such large scale regional standardisation would mean that cybersecurity threats would also be large scale. 

 

The government of Netherlands guidance on trustworthiness of consumers requires that suppliers should follow the principle of security by design. It also proposes that the supplier is obliged to provide maintenance updates. For the Czech Republic, the concept of security by design will be embedded in the whole public procurement process. In line with its national public procurement act, the National Cybersecurity act which comes into force in 2024 will allow clients to terminate contracts of suppliers whose services are not in line with the cybersecurity act. And to minimise loss from the suppliers, the procuring, in their request for services, are required to set out service specification requirements in line with the cybersecurity act (email response from a member of IS3C Working Group, 2023).

 

Both worth noting and recommendable, is countries directly adopting standards from other well established nations. For example, Poland adopted the US NIST standards to develop its own (Republic of Poland, n.d). This provides policy coherence, especially where there are trade functions between countries. The downside however, the countries may miss out on prioritising policy harmonisation with their neighbouring countries and trade blocks, which are also crucial for coordinated protection and response.

  1. Detect

The ‘detect’ function defines activities that would enable organisations to detect cybersecurity attacks as soon as they occur. It may involve setting up continuous monitoring mechanisms that detect anomalies in the systems.

 

The supply chain documents we came across called for continuous monitoring of systems to detect cybersecurity threats in time, but also went further to call for continuous relationship between clients and their service providers to ensure vulnerabilities detected by the suppliers are communicated as soon as they occur. The guidance by the Australian government (2023) puts emphasis on risk management activities to be conducted during the earliest possible stage of procurement to manage jurisdictional, governance, privacy and security risks. The Kingdom of Netherlands advises that apart from providing the clients with maintenance updates, suppliers should also be willing to report on the vulnerability of their solutions at the time of provision and those that emerge in the future.

  1. Respond

The ‘respond’ function contains activities put in place to contain cybersecurity incidents. This includes both long term and short term measures to control the spread of cybersecurity attacks. It may also involve setting up crisis communication mechanisms, frameworks/channels for coordination and analysis to draw lessons learnt for better response in future. 

 

The respond function actually employs the standards already in place to contain cyberthreats. For example, building collaborative networks for coordination, and information sharing could help mitigate cyberthreats. The Trusted Automated Exchange of Indicator Information (TAXII) defines protocols for services and message exchange that “enable sharing of actionable cyber threat information across organisation and product/service boundaries.” (OASIS Open, 2016)

  1. Recover

The ‘recover’ function not only contains a set of activities that restores the organisation to how it was, but also sets up activities to implement actions from the lessons learnt. It therefore might include setting up measures that were not there before to prevent a repeat cyber threat, and these might be the same measures set in the aforementioned cybersecurity functions. For example, if there were security gaps before the incident, or if the security protocols in place were interfered with, the recover function gives guidelines to restore them back in place. Because it mainly relies on the ability of organisations to learn from incidents, standards on information exchange would be helpful here.

 

Conclusions: Best practice and gaps

At the very best level of standards harmonisation is the use of regionally developed policies to procurement policies and guidelines. The GDPR in the European Union, for example, has provided opportunities for common understanding and harmonisation with regards to the security of information systems. The GDPR recognises that there are risks in data processing, and therefore obliges data processors to put in place state of the art kind of protection. As such, putting in place standards such as the ISO 27000 series standards does not necessarily mean full compliance to the GDPR though in practice, these standards are considered as ‘state of the art’ measures of protection in data processing and management. 

 

The approach of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations towards all levels of government is close to mandatory on the topic of standards deployment. The ‘Pas-Toe-Leg-Uit Lijst’ (comply-or-explain list) of the Forum Standardisation is a document containing 43 open standards that all governments in the Netherlands have to demand when procuring ICTs, unless there is a very good reason not to do so. The comply-or-explain list was created with a few criteria in mind. The basis for this selection is the criterion of interoperability. With interoperability comes an interdependency where security is concerned, in the sense that the use of an insecure standard affects all concerned and the deployment of the latest standards secures all simultaneously. Often there is no first mover advantage for industry. The government can stimulate deployment by demand. Under this Forum, the Platform Internet Standards operates. By way of the tool used to track standards adoption internet.nl, raising awareness of the deployment of certain internet standards for all organisations allows the general public to test the deployed level of security of an organisation based on three indicators: website, email and connection. When a website is analysed with the tool, it automatically tests whether the website has deployed the following standards: DNSSEC, TLS, SPF, DMARC, DKIM, HTTPS, StartTLS, and IPv6. The Internet.nl software is open source and available for all countries to adopt. Currently, as far as known, the software has been adopted in Australia, Brazil, Denmark and Singapore.

Future work: High level guidance

From this exercise, we note the following trends in procurement and cybersecurity, though it is important to note that these cannot be the generalisations of all public procurement trends because not enough documents have been analysed, which is in itself an area for future work.

 

  1. There are many awareness documents targeting businesses, organisations and government agencies, however, none of these guidelines make use of open cybersecurity standards as points of reference.
  2. A number of government procurement regulations in relation to cybersecurity procurement e.g. Finland and Taiwan point to the compliance of international treaties. This demonstrates an opportunity for the role of international institutions like the IGF to provide guidance on technical and policy standards.
  3. Many government ministries do not have a standalone document addressing cybersecurity standards in the procurement of ICT and electronic services. At best, they have procurement of cybersecurity products.
  4. General public procurement regulations do not give provisions of guidelines to ensure cybersecurity safeguards, which is fine, but they also don't give directions for the development of frameworks to enhance cybersecurity in the procurement of ICT goods and services.
  5. In general, procurement documents touching on cybersecurity standards focus on reducing disruptions. For example, they address interoperability and the ability of internal handlers to continue to be familiar with the systems for maintenance and to be able to tackle unforeseen challenges. These are mostly addressed in the requirements for proper documentation before and after service provision.
  6. There seems to be little coordination among industry and public agencies in how these standards are applied, mostly because of lack of awareness by these agencies and lack of coordination among the standards setting bodies themselves.

 

Specific use of open standards is conspicuously missing in the procurement documents we analysed. Based on this work we see the need for a fit for purpose suite of materials aimed at decision makers. These might include guidelines, checklists, or other educational toolkits. For future policy recommendations it is critical to identify to whom recommendations will be made: government procurement agencies, trade and industry bodies, tech sector, standards body liaisons, and others.

 

As much as there are already existing standards to promote security in cyberspace, there could be a lack of understanding and cooperation between regional and national bodies with regards to the wider aims of promoting cybersecurity on the internet. Next steps should therefore look at developing a best practice toolkit that guides organisations on how to use open international cybersecurity standards, not only for their own cybersecurity resilience, but also for better coordination in efforts to promote a secure cyberspace for all. The toolkit will look at how procurement bodies can integrate international cybersecurity standards with national cybersecurity strategies, regional policies, as well as developing national standards for cybersecurity considering the different cybersecurity priorities for different countries and regions.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to offer many thanks to the DC IC3C members who provided feedback on the very early concept of this working group. Thank you to Selby Abraham for communications support and the design and layout of this report. Special thanks to the DC IC3C coordinator Wout de Natris and senior policy advisor Mark Carvell. We also thank the community members for providing support in locating resources relevant to this research and their expertise. For this, we specifically thank Titti Cassa, Karolína Menšíková, and Timothy Asiedu. This research was supported by RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund 2022. We welcome participation from a wide range of geographies and stakeholder groups on future work.

Annex: Bibliography of policy documents

African Union. (2016). National Procurement Manual. African Union. Retrieved May 12, 2023, from https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/36320-doc-african_union_procurement_manual_v._2.0_-_2016-1.pdf 

Australian Government. (2023, March 2). Guidelines for Procurement and Outsourcing | Cyber.gov.au. Australian Cyber Security Centre. Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://www.cyber.gov.au/resources-business-and-government/essential-cyber-security/ism/cyber-security-guidelines/guidelines-procurement-and-outsourcing 

ENISA. (2020). PROCUREMENT GUIDELINES FOR CYBERSECURITY IN HOSPITALS. European Commission. Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/procurement_guidelines_for_cybersecurity_in_hospitals.pdf 

Government of India. (2019). Public Procurement (prefference to make in India) for Cybersecurity Products. https://www.meity.gov.in/. https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Public_Procurement_(Preference_to_make_in_India)_order_2019_for_Cyber_Security_Products.pdf 

Government of Taiwan. (2019). Government Procurement Act. Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan). Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=A0030057

Kingdom of Netherlands. (2022, January 12). Non-paper on the principles of a Cyber Resilience Act. The Netherlands at International Organisations. Retrieved May 12, 2023, from https://www.permanentrepresentations.nl/permanent-representations/pr-eu-brussels/documents/publications/2022/01/12/non-paper-on-the-principles-of-a-cyber-resilience-act 

National Cyber Security Centre. (n.d.). Supply Chain Cybersecurity. National Cyber Security Centre. Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://www.ncsc.govt.nz/assets/NCSC-Documents/NCSC-Supply-Chain-Cyber-Security.pdf 

National Institute for Standards and Technology. (2018, February 14). Draft NISTIR 8200, Interagency Report on Status of International Cybersecurity Standardization for the Internet of Things (IoT). NIST Computer Security Resource Center. Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/publications/nistir/8200/draft/documents/nistir8200-draft.pdf 

New Zealand Government. (n.d.). Supply Chain Cybersecurity. National Cyber Security Centre. Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://www.ncsc.govt.nz/assets/NCSC-Documents/NCSC-Supply-Chain-Cyber-Security.pdf 

Purser, S. (2014). Standards for Cyber Security. In Best Practices in Computer Network Defense: Incident Detection and Response (Vol. 35, pp. 97-106). IOS Press. 10.3233/978-1-61499-372-8-107 

Republic of Poland. (n.d). Narodowe Standardy Cyberbezpieczeństwa - Baza wiedzy - Portal Gov.pl. Gov.pl. Retrieved June 25, 2023, from https://www.gov.pl/web/baza-wiedzy/narodowe-standardy-cyber 

UK Government. (2018). Supply chain security guidance - NCSC.GOV.UK. National Cyber Security Centre. Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/supply-chain-security 

 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Anna Felkner

wholesome assessments of systems

Instead of: "Many procurement and cybersecurity awareness guidance documents have also encouraged periodical and wholesome assessments of systems." - should not it be: 

"Many procurement and cybersecurity awareness guidance documents have also encouraged periodical and comprehensive assessments of systems."

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user prince.zutah

Exploring the Role of Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Enhanci

In an increasingly interconnected world, the draft "Exploring the Role of Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Enhancing Cybersecurity Practices" delves into the vital relationship between global internet governance, cybersecurity, and procurement processes. With the proliferation of networked products and services susceptible to security threats, the authors emphasize the need for robust cybersecurity standards and best practices adoption worldwide.

The draft casts a spotlight on the Internet Governance Forum's (IGF) Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security, and Safety (IS3C) as a commendable initiative to bolster online security. By focusing on three core areas – Security by design, Education and skills, and Procurement and business models – the IS3C aims to foster collaborative efforts among governments, industry players, civil society, and academia. This multi-stakeholder approach, facilitated by open and inclusive processes, is proposed as a means to shift normative practices in cybersecurity and enhance overall risk mitigation.

Drawing on a global survey of procurement guidance, the study scrutinizes how cybersecurity standards are integrated into procurement practices. Categorizing findings through the lens of the US NIST's cybersecurity framework, the authors uncover trends and gaps in existing policies. The draft underscores that, despite the existence of cybersecurity standards, their practical integration into procurement strategies remains a challenge, particularly in promoting widespread awareness and adherence.

The authors propose a valuable solution – a best practice toolkit – to bridge the gap between cybersecurity standards and procurement practices. This toolkit, designed to guide decision-makers, could potentially harmonize international standards with national cybersecurity strategies and regional policies. By encouraging coordination among industry, public agencies, and standards bodies, the draft envisions a more secure online landscape.

In conclusion, the draft contributes a nuanced understanding of the intricate interplay between global governance, cybersecurity, and procurement practices. It showcases the potential of multi-stakeholder collaborations, exemplified by IS3C, to bolster cybersecurity efforts. As societies become increasingly digital, the insights presented in this draft call for sustained and cooperative endeavors to enhance cybersecurity across the board.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user prince.zutah

Exploring the Role of Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Enhanci

In an increasingly interconnected world, the draft "Exploring the Role of Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Enhancing Cybersecurity Practices" delves into the vital relationship between global internet governance, cybersecurity, and procurement processes. With the proliferation of networked products and services susceptible to security threats, the authors emphasize the need for robust cybersecurity standards and best practices adoption worldwide.

The draft casts a spotlight on the Internet Governance Forum's (IGF) Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security, and Safety (IS3C) as a commendable initiative to bolster online security. By focusing on three core areas – Security by design, Education and skills, and Procurement and business models – the IS3C aims to foster collaborative efforts among governments, industry players, civil society, and academia. This multi-stakeholder approach, facilitated by open and inclusive processes, is proposed as a means to shift normative practices in cybersecurity and enhance overall risk mitigation.

Drawing on a global survey of procurement guidance, the study scrutinizes how cybersecurity standards are integrated into procurement practices. Categorizing findings through the lens of the US NIST's cybersecurity framework, the authors uncover trends and gaps in existing policies. The draft underscores that, despite the existence of cybersecurity standards, their practical integration into procurement strategies remains a challenge, particularly in promoting widespread awareness and adherence.

The authors propose a valuable solution – a best practice toolkit – to bridge the gap between cybersecurity standards and procurement practices. This toolkit, designed to guide decision-makers, could potentially harmonize international standards with national cybersecurity strategies and regional policies. By encouraging coordination among industry, public agencies, and standards bodies, the draft envisions a more secure online landscape.

In conclusion, the draft contributes a nuanced understanding of the intricate interplay between global governance, cybersecurity, and procurement practices. It showcases the potential of multi-stakeholder collaborations, exemplified by IS3C, to bolster cybersecurity efforts. As societies become increasingly digital, the insights presented in this draft call for sustained and cooperative endeavors to enhance cybersecurity across the board.

 

0 People voted for this

Policy Networks

Policy Networks Anonymous Tue, 12/09/2023 - 15:24
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

IGF 2023 PNMA Report

IGF 2023 PNMA Report Daphnee Iglesias Tue, 12/09/2023 - 15:02

The Policy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA) is a type of intersessional activity under IGF created to establish an expert-led framework network on broad Internet governance topics that create spaces for in-depth multistakeholder efforts. It aims to identify best practices and successful solutions applied somewhere in order to formulate impact-driven, concrete, and actionable policy recommendations on how to achieve meaningful and universal Internet access aligned with the Secretary-General's Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and the Sustainable Development Goals.

In 2022, the PNMA’s analytical focus was on the community’s agreed three overarching thematic workstreams: Connectivity (Infrastructure & Business Models), Digital Inclusion through citizen approach (accessibility & multilingualism: local services and contents in local languages based on local needs and resources) and Capacity Development (technical skills training). During the last year’s intersessional activities, the policy network has actively contributed within and outside IGF communities to identify a certain number of good practices and policy solutions, and retain them  as possible models to be exported or applied to other regions of the world. Stakeholders from different groups joined this enterprise: government, international organisations, academia, private actors, non-profits. The PNMA 2022 Output Report features a collation of selected cases for each of the focus areas. Additionally, one section of the document is devoted to recommendations around meaningful access and its expansion. 

The PNMA decided to pursue the development of this experience for 2023, assisting with the implementation of solutions for the issues previously raised. Its community wishes to open a multistakeholder public debate under these actions to influence policy change and the upcoming Global Digital Compact, in addition to the WSIS+20 and IGF+20 processes. 

Below are the key areas being developed by the Policy Network in Meaningful Access (PNMA) in its 2023 report. Comments can be added below each section by clicking on ''View and Add Comments for Paragraph''.

Deadline to post comments is 22 September 2023.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Daphnee Iglesias

Exploring Connectivity

For each focus area, the policy network is collating data on good practices, collaborations and partnerships.

Thinking of Connectivity,

1. Are you aware of any network, collective, organisation etc, working to promote meaningful connectivity, that its efforts should be highlighted in the report? We would like to engage with big and small, local, regional or national initiatives.



2. Have you come across any activity/project during the last year that could be highlighted as a good practice? We would be happy to know the following:



(name of the project)

- Location: (country, city/region if available)

- Funding: (funder, figure, for how long, n/a)

- Responsible institutions / partners / people:

- What is the problem(s) it is trying to solve? (set up the context; describe the problem)

- Is it a Rural / Urban setting?

- Is there a gender focus?

- What were the services provided, subsidies used, anything else worth sharing?

- Which were the actions taken to address the problem(s)? 

- Results:

- Impact:

- Lessons learned: (what worked / remaining challenges)

0 People voted for this

Reply to

Added suggestion on connectivity (sorry to be late!)

Thinking of Connectivity,



1. Are you aware of any network, collective, organisation etc, working to promote meaningful connectivity, that its efforts should be highlighted in the report? We would like to engage with big and small, local, regional or national initiatives.



Yes – the Gigabit Libraries Network has looked to engage with Starlink in order to explore the potential of using Low-Earth Orbit satellite links to bring connections to public libraries in the US and Africa.


2. Have you come across any activity/project during the last year that could be highlighted as a good practice? We would be happy to know the following:



- Location: Montana, New Mexico US, and Nigeria


- Funding: within the US, the Institute for Museum and Library Services. Within Nigeria, provision for free by Starlink for 2 years


- Responsible institutions / partners / people: Gigabit Libraries Network, State Libraries of Montana and New Mexico, African Library and Information Associations and Institutions


- What is the problem(s) it is trying to solve?: while libraries have a proven potential to support wider meaningful access goals through combining connectivity with an offer of devices, content and skills support, this is all dependent on having adequate connectivity themselves in the first place. This is not always the case, with libraries in remote and rural areas often not sufficiently connected to be able to meet what are often significant needs. Using alternative connectivity technologies offers an exciting option to overcome the challenge of distance.


- Is it a Rural / Urban setting? Rural, and in the case of New Mexico, on First Nations land.


- Is there a gender focus? Not explicitly, but it is generally seen that women tend to make more use of libraries than men


- What were the services provided, subsidies used, anything else worth sharing? Primarily, the offer is about unlocking the pre-existing potential of libraries to support meaningful access to and engagement with knowledge. Through this, there is the possibility in particular for children to do homework, and for adults to access benefits and other support.


- Which were the actions taken to address the problem(s)?: the primary work, led by the Gigabit Libraries Network was to engage Starlink in order to open up the possibilities for libraries to access enterprise licences and through this provide access to users. Following this, the need was to ensure that the libraries could access and set up the relevant equipment, and then integrate this into the existing offer.


- Results: so far, four libraries have been connected in the United States, and plans are to connect five at least in Nigeria.


- Impact: the programme is still underway, but it appears that there has already been a significant uptick in use of libraries, and positive anecdotal evidence from users of much strengthened ability to participate in learning.


- Lessons learned: (what worked / remaining challenges): the model appears to work, at least at the scale of smaller rural and local libraries (where the need is greatest anyway). As it expands, it will be welcome to see how well this type of access scales, as well as to monitor to what extent it also motivates people to purchase home connectivity as well.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Daphnee Iglesias

Exploring Connectivity

For each focus area, the policy network is collating data on good practices, collaborations and partnerships.

Thinking of Connectivity,

1. Are you aware of any network, collective, organisation etc, working to promote meaningful connectivity, that its efforts should be highlighted in the report? We would like to engage with big and small, local, regional or national initiatives.



2. Have you come across any activity/project during the last year that could be highlighted as a good practice? We would be happy to know the following:



(name of the project)

- Location: (country, city/region if available)

- Funding: (funder, figure, for how long, n/a)

- Responsible institutions / partners / people:

- What is the problem(s) it is trying to solve? (set up the context; describe the problem)

- Is it a Rural / Urban setting?

- Is there a gender focus?

- What were the services provided, subsidies used, anything else worth sharing?

- Which were the actions taken to address the problem(s)? 

- Results:

- Impact:

- Lessons learned: (what worked / remaining challenges)

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Daphnee Iglesias

Testing comments below…

Testing comments below

Please ignore this thread

0 People voted for this

Connectivity response

Thinking of Connectivity,



1. Are you aware of any network, collective, organisation etc, working to promote meaningful connectivity, that its efforts should be highlighted in the report? We would like to engage with big and small, local, regional or national initiatives.



Yes – the Gigabit Libraries Network has looked to engage with Starlink in order to explore the potential of using Low-Earth Orbit satellite links to bring connections to public libraries in the US and Africa.


2. Have you come across any activity/project during the last year that could be highlighted as a good practice? We would be happy to know the following:



- Location: Montana, New Mexico US, and Nigeria


- Funding: within the US, the Institute for Museum and Library Services. Within Nigeria, provision for free by Starlink for 2 years


- Responsible institutions / partners / people: Gigabit Libraries Network, State Libraries of Montana and New Mexico, African Library and Information Associations and Institutions


- What is the problem(s) it is trying to solve?: while libraries have a proven potential to support wider meaningful access goals through combining connectivity with an offer of devices, content and skills support, this is all dependent on having adequate connectivity themselves in the first place. This is not always the case, with libraries in remote and rural areas often not sufficiently connected to be able to meet what are often significant needs. Using alternative connectivity technologies offers an exciting option to overcome the challenge of distance.


- Is it a Rural / Urban setting? Rural, and in the case of New Mexico, on First Nations land.


- Is there a gender focus? Not explicitly, but it is generally seen that women tend to make more use of libraries than men


- What were the services provided, subsidies used, anything else worth sharing? Primarily, the offer is about unlocking the pre-existing potential of libraries to support meaningful access to and engagement with knowledge. Through this, there is the possibility in particular for children to do homework, and for adults to access benefits and other support.


- Which were the actions taken to address the problem(s)?: the primary work, led by the Gigabit Libraries Network was to engage Starlink in order to open up the possibilities for libraries to access enterprise licences and through this provide access to users. Following this, the need was to ensure that the libraries could access and set up the relevant equipment, and then integrate this into the existing offer.


- Results: so far, four libraries have been connected in the United States, and plans are to connect five at least in Nigeria.


- Impact: the programme is still underway, but it appears that there has already been a significant uptick in use of libraries, and positive anecdotal evidence from users of much strengthened ability to participate in learning.


- Lessons learned: (what worked / remaining challenges): the model appears to work, at least at the scale of smaller rural and local libraries (where the need is greatest anyway). As it expands, it will be welcome to see how well this type of access scales, as well as to monitor to what extent it also motivates people to purchase home connectivity as well.

0 People voted for this

Connectivity response (apologies for delay)

Thinking of Connectivity,



1. Are you aware of any network, collective, organisation etc, working to promote meaningful connectivity, that its efforts should be highlighted in the report? We would like to engage with big and small, local, regional or national initiatives.



Yes – the Gigabit Libraries Network has looked to engage with Starlink in order to explore the potential of using Low-Earth Orbit satellite links to bring connections to public libraries in the US and Africa.


2. Have you come across any activity/project during the last year that could be highlighted as a good practice? We would be happy to know the following:



- Location: Montana, New Mexico US, and Nigeria


- Funding: within the US, the Institute for Museum and Library Services. Within Nigeria, provision for free by Starlink for 2 years


- Responsible institutions / partners / people: Gigabit Libraries Network, State Libraries of Montana and New Mexico, African Library and Information Associations and Institutions


- What is the problem(s) it is trying to solve?: while libraries have a proven potential to support wider meaningful access goals through combining connectivity with an offer of devices, content and skills support, this is all dependent on having adequate connectivity themselves in the first place. This is not always the case, with libraries in remote and rural areas often not sufficiently connected to be able to meet what are often significant needs. Using alternative connectivity technologies offers an exciting option to overcome the challenge of distance.


- Is it a Rural / Urban setting? Rural, and in the case of New Mexico, on First Nations land.


- Is there a gender focus? Not explicitly, but it is generally seen that women tend to make more use of libraries than men


- What were the services provided, subsidies used, anything else worth sharing? Primarily, the offer is about unlocking the pre-existing potential of libraries to support meaningful access to and engagement with knowledge. Through this, there is the possibility in particular for children to do homework, and for adults to access benefits and other support.


- Which were the actions taken to address the problem(s)?: the primary work, led by the Gigabit Libraries Network was to engage Starlink in order to open up the possibilities for libraries to access enterprise licences and through this provide access to users. Following this, the need was to ensure that the libraries could access and set up the relevant equipment, and then integrate this into the existing offer.


- Results: so far, four libraries have been connected in the United States, and plans are to connect five at least in Nigeria.


- Impact: the programme is still underway, but it appears that there has already been a significant uptick in use of libraries, and positive anecdotal evidence from users of much strengthened ability to participate in learning.


- Lessons learned: (what worked / remaining challenges): the model appears to work, at least at the scale of smaller rural and local libraries (where the need is greatest anyway). As it expands, it will be welcome to see how well this type of access scales, as well as to monitor to what extent it also motivates people to purchase home connectivity as well.

0 People voted for this

Connectivity response (apologies for delay)

Thinking of Connectivity,



1. Are you aware of any network, collective, organisation etc, working to promote meaningful connectivity, that its efforts should be highlighted in the report? We would like to engage with big and small, local, regional or national initiatives.



Yes – the Gigabit Libraries Network has looked to engage with Starlink in order to explore the potential of using Low-Earth Orbit satellite links to bring connections to public libraries in the US and Africa.


2. Have you come across any activity/project during the last year that could be highlighted as a good practice? We would be happy to know the following:



- Location: Montana, New Mexico US, and Nigeria


- Funding: within the US, the Institute for Museum and Library Services. Within Nigeria, provision for free by Starlink for 2 years


- Responsible institutions / partners / people: Gigabit Libraries Network, State Libraries of Montana and New Mexico, African Library and Information Associations and Institutions


- What is the problem(s) it is trying to solve?: while libraries have a proven potential to support wider meaningful access goals through combining connectivity with an offer of devices, content and skills support, this is all dependent on having adequate connectivity themselves in the first place. This is not always the case, with libraries in remote and rural areas often not sufficiently connected to be able to meet what are often significant needs. Using alternative connectivity technologies offers an exciting option to overcome the challenge of distance.


- Is it a Rural / Urban setting? Rural, and in the case of New Mexico, on First Nations land.


- Is there a gender focus? Not explicitly, but it is generally seen that women tend to make more use of libraries than men


- What were the services provided, subsidies used, anything else worth sharing? Primarily, the offer is about unlocking the pre-existing potential of libraries to support meaningful access to and engagement with knowledge. Through this, there is the possibility in particular for children to do homework, and for adults to access benefits and other support.


- Which were the actions taken to address the problem(s)?: the primary work, led by the Gigabit Libraries Network was to engage Starlink in order to open up the possibilities for libraries to access enterprise licences and through this provide access to users. Following this, the need was to ensure that the libraries could access and set up the relevant equipment, and then integrate this into the existing offer.


- Results: so far, four libraries have been connected in the United States, and plans are to connect five at least in Nigeria.


- Impact: the programme is still underway, but it appears that there has already been a significant uptick in use of libraries, and positive anecdotal evidence from users of much strengthened ability to participate in learning.


- Lessons learned: (what worked / remaining challenges): the model appears to work, at least at the scale of smaller rural and local libraries (where the need is greatest anyway). As it expands, it will be welcome to see how well this type of access scales, as well as to monitor to what extent it also motivates people to purchase home connectivity as well.

0 People voted for this

Exploring Connectivity

For each focus area, the policy network is collating data on good practices, collaborations and partnerships.



Thinking of Connectivity,

1. Are you aware of any network, collective, organisation etc, working to promote meaningful connectivity, that its efforts should be highlighted in the report? We would like to engage with big and small, local, regional or national initiatives.



2. Have you come across any activity/project during the last year that could be highlighted as a good practice? We would be happy to know the following:



(name of the project)

- Location: (country, city/region if available)

- Funding: (funder, figure, for how long, n/a)

- Responsible institutions / partners / people:

- What is the problem(s) it is trying to solve? (set up the context; describe the problem)

- Is it a Rural / Urban setting?

- Is there a gender focus?

- What were the services provided, subsidies used, anything else worth sharing?

- Which were the actions taken to address the problem(s)? 

- Results:

- Impact:

- Lessons learned: (what worked / remaining challenges)

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Exploring Digital Inclusion

For each focus area, the policy network is collating data on good practices, collaborations and partnerships.



Thinking of Digital Inclusion,

1. Are you aware of any network, collective, organisation etc, working to promote meaningful access, that its efforts should be highlighted in the report? We would like to engage with big and small, local, regional or national initiatives.



2. Have you come across any activity/project during the last year that could be highlighted as a good practice? We would be happy to know the following:



(name of the project)

- Location: (country, city/region if available)

- Funding: (funder, figure, for how long, n/a)

- Responsible institutions / partners / people:

- What is the problem(s) it is trying to solve? (set up the context; describe the problem)

- Is it a Rural / Urban setting?

- Is there a gender focus?

- What were the services provided, subsidies used, anything else worth sharing?

- Which were the actions taken to address the problem(s)? 

- Results:

- Impact:

- Lessons learned: (what worked / remaining challenges)

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Exploring Capacity Development

For each focus area, the policy network is collating data on good practices, collaborations and partnerships.



Thinking of Capacity Development,

1. Are you aware of any efforts by a network, collective, organisation etc that should be highlighted in the report? We would like to engage with big and small, local, regional or national initiatives.



2. Have you come across any activity/project during the last year that could be highlighted as a good practice? We would be happy to know the following:



(name of the project)

- Location: (country, city/region if available)

- Funding: (funder, figure, for how long, n/a)

- Responsible institutions / partners / people:

- What is the problem(s) it is trying to solve? (set up the context; describe the problem)

- Is it a Rural / Urban setting?

- Is there a gender focus?

- What were the services provided, subsidies used, anything else worth sharing?

- Which were the actions taken to address the problem(s)? 

- Results:

- Impact:

- Lessons learned: (what worked / remaining challenges)

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Collaborating with the IGF Leadership Panel

A close interaction with the Leadership Panel enables a better understanding and advocacy of the PNMA mandate, and of the IGF structure as a whole.

1. In your expertise/working area, what are the key topics the PNMA should look for support of the Leadership Panel?

2. How do you foresee the institutional and pragmatic collaboration between these two entities?

 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Global Digital Compact

1: While the GDC appears to be paying very welcome attention to the concept of meaningful access, it will be important to reinforce this, and to ensure that it is the definitive metric of success in any effort to enforce greater coordination on internet governance efforts in general. In particular, we would want to ensure that the GDC echoes the sort of approach we see from UNESCO with the ROAM-X indicators, where individual experience of the internet is key. Specific goals will be to ensure adequate recognition of the role of content (access to relevant content) as part of making access meaningful, as well as an approach to building skills that reaches across the lifespan, rather than just to those in formal education as appears to be the case now. 

2: A welcome step, as part of the GDC, could be to commission an effort to build on existing work on meaningful connectivity to build up a sense of what meaningful access looks like. PNMA could be well placed to support this, but perhaps more importantly still, to feed in examples and ideas on an ongoing basis that would help to make this a reality, in particular in response to emerging issues and trends. 

0 People voted for this

Global Digital Compact

1: While the GDC appears to be paying very welcome attention to the concept of meaningful access, it will be important to reinforce this, and to ensure that it is the definitive metric of success in any effort to enforce greater coordination on internet governance efforts in general. In particular, we would want to ensure that the GDC echoes the sort of approach we see from UNESCO with the ROAM-X indicators, where individual experience of the internet is key. Specific goals will be to ensure adequate recognition of the role of content (access to relevant content) as part of making access meaningful, as well as an approach to building skills that reaches across the lifespan, rather than just to those in formal education as appears to be the case now. 

2: A welcome step, as part of the GDC, could be to commission an effort to build on existing work on meaningful connectivity to build up a sense of what meaningful access looks like. PNMA could be well placed to support this, but perhaps more importantly still, to feed in examples and ideas on an ongoing basis that would help to make this a reality, in particular in response to emerging issues and trends. 

0 People voted for this

Global Digital Compact

1: While the GDC appears to be paying very welcome attention to the concept of meaningful access, it will be important to reinforce this, and to ensure that it is the definitive metric of success in any effort to enforce greater coordination on internet governance efforts in general. In particular, we would want to ensure that the GDC echoes the sort of approach we see from UNESCO with the ROAM-X indicators, where individual experience of the internet is key. Specific goals will be to ensure adequate recognition of the role of content (access to relevant content) as part of making access meaningful, as well as an approach to building skills that reaches across the lifespan, rather than just to those in formal education as appears to be the case now. 

2: A welcome step, as part of the GDC, could be to commission an effort to build on existing work on meaningful connectivity to build up a sense of what meaningful access looks like. PNMA could be well placed to support this, but perhaps more importantly still, to feed in examples and ideas on an ongoing basis that would help to make this a reality, in particular in response to emerging issues and trends. 

0 People voted for this

Global Digital Compact

1: While the GDC appears to be paying very welcome attention to the concept of meaningful access, it will be important to reinforce this, and to ensure that it is the definitive metric of success in any effort to enforce greater coordination on internet governance efforts in general. In particular, we would want to ensure that the GDC echoes the sort of approach we see from UNESCO with the ROAM-X indicators, where individual experience of the internet is key. Specific goals will be to ensure adequate recognition of the role of content (access to relevant content) as part of making access meaningful, as well as an approach to building skills that reaches across the lifespan, rather than just to those in formal education as appears to be the case now. 

2: A welcome step, as part of the GDC, could be to commission an effort to build on existing work on meaningful connectivity to build up a sense of what meaningful access looks like. PNMA could be well placed to support this, but perhaps more importantly still, to feed in examples and ideas on an ongoing basis that would help to make this a reality, in particular in response to emerging issues and trends. 

0 People voted for this

Contributing to the Global Digital Compact/Summit for the Future

The PNMA community wishes to open a multistakeholder public debate under these actions to influence policy change and the upcoming Global Digital Compact, in addition to the WSIS+20 and IGF+20 processes.

1. In your expertise/working area, what are the key topics the PNMA cannot miss in the discussion with the GDC?

2. How do you foresee the institutional and pragmatic collaboration between these two entities?

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Intersessional work with Youth IGF, DCs, and/or NRIs 

The PNMA understands that encouraging internal cooperation is one way further to the success of our common pleas. Hence, the network would like to know from the Youth IGF, DCs, and NRIs how the relationship can be improved:

1. For your intersessional group, what are the key topics the PNMA and your intersessional group could work together?

2. How do you see this partnership moving forward?

3. Please share any feedback you might have on the PNMA activities

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Collaboration streams beyond the UN

In 2022, the PNMA improved its relationships with the ITU, ICANN, WIPO, and WAN-INFRA, including the promotion of their good practices around meaningful access. Would you suggest any additional collaboration opportunity? Let us know! 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Issues for IGF consideration and action

The discussions at the annual meetings and during the development of the PNMA work plans have identified some ideas about the possible role of the IGF in promoting the solutions and policy change demanded by the community. Similarly to the 2022 process, the 2023 Output Report would like to open a public debate around said issues, and collate them for monitoring. Let us know if you would like to report anything, being it a structural, long-standing problem or a new issue recently identified.

 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

PNAI Report

PNAI Report

Consultation - The Policy Network on AI (PNAI) draft report

Please leave your comments and editing suggestions through this page. Please read the full pdf version of the Draft PNAI report to see pictures and footnotes. The consultation starts on 19th September 2023 and is open for everyone!

You can add comments below each report chapter by clicking on "View and Add Comments for Paragraph". Comments to the Draft version of the PNAI report are welcome through the IGF Review Platform until 27th September 2023. Based on the feedback gathered through the consultation, PNAI team will edit and prepare the final version of the report. All comments received through the consultation are public and can be published.

sipinen.maikki_54093 Wed, 06/09/2023 - 18:00

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

[Pages 3 - 8 in the Draft report, please read the pdf draft report to see pictures and footnotes]

In the 21st century, artificial intelligence (AI) is considered a key driver of social and economic development and its applications are transforming every walk of life. From smart homes and digital assistants to personalized learning or identifying medical conditions in CT-scans, AI is rapidly impacting our lives. If developed and deployed responsibly, AI can be used to for example deliver more effective government services tailored to the needs of citizens, by improving transport services, health services, and infrastructure. Powered by quality data, AI contributes to cutting-edge innovations that aid technological development across sectors. Applications of AI and their impact transcend national boundaries and national or local interests. AI is an essential tool in tackling the global challenges and accelerating the progress towards reaching the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. AI can accelerate action aimed at improving social welfare, environmental stewardship and sustainable economic growth.

While AI technologies can be of great service to humanity and all countries can benefit from them, rapid technological advances and accelerated society-wide uptake of AI raise fundamental ethical concerns. For instance, biases embedded in AI systems can potentially result in AI systems that sustain and amplify existing unjust biases in our society, reinforce discrimination and enable new levels of authoritarian surveillance. Without decisive action and concerted interventions, AI could exacerbate discrimination, inequality, digital divides, exclusion and environmental harms, and deepen socioeconomic divides.  

AI can be leveraged to analyze climate data, predict climate patterns, and optimize energy use, that can identify vulnerable regions, assess risks, and develop strategies for climate adaptation, for the most vulnerable. Paradoxically, the environmental impact of AI in the context of data storage, computation, and energy consumption, is a growing concern.

Responsible AI and robust data governance can support climate adaptation and resilience efforts; For example, robust data governance can facilitate high-value diverse datasets, including climate data, socioeconomic data, and infrastructure information, which requires that software, data, foundation models, standards, and other digital content that are freely or openly available to the public as digital public goods. Effective AI policy for the environment requires a fine balance between data governance that ensures high-value global datasets are accessible for responsible data usage to support public interest decision-making while reducing the environmental footprint of AI systems.

AI technologies have a great potential to be beneficial to the environment and society. However, for these benefits to be realized, the potential harms should not be ignored but addressed.

It is vital to guide AI technologies, their development, uptake and use, in a responsible direction. Many countries, regions and international organizations have developed AI strategies, policies, recommendations, regulations and initiatives to maximize the benefits but also to manage the risks. As AI’s development and impact are global, international dialogue and joint action is needed. There is a need to continue developing, strengthening, sharing and implementing international recommendations, for example standard-setting developed through a comprehensive approach. These should place human dignity and human rights in the center and be grounded in gender equality, justice and mental well-being, diversity, interconnectedness, inclusiveness, and social and economic development - while also taking into account environmental and ecosystem protection.

The Policy Network on AI (PNAI) addresses policy matters related to AI and data governance. It is a global multistakeholder effort hosted by the United Nations’ (UN) Internet Governance Forum (IGF), providing a platform for stakeholders and changemakers in the AI field to contribute their expertise, insights, and recommendations. The primary goal of the Policy Network is to foster dialogue and contribute to the global AI policy discourse. This report is the first output document of the PNAI. It is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment or analysis of policy questions on AI and data governance. Rather, this first report develops analysis and recommendations to start a conversation. It delivers fresh suggestions from the global multistakeholder community, and paves way for the PNAI’s future work on AI-enabled technologies.

Recognizing the opportunities and risks AI presents, the UN is promoting ethical development and application of AI and has for example committed to support AI-related capacity building for developing countries and broader stakeholder engagement on AI. The UN Secretary-General's Roadmap for Digital Cooperation presented in 2020 notes a gap in international coordination, collaboration and governance on AI, and calls for enhanced international multi-stakeholder efforts to ensure AI benefits all. In July 2023, the UN Security Council discussed threats of AI to international peace and security for the first time. The Secretary-General announced the formation of a new high-level meeting on AI to assess options for global AI governance, as well as issuing new recommendations on AI governance to the UN Member States.

PNAI’s work and this report contribute to the UN's Global Digital Compact, a forthcoming agreement that focuses on the impact of digital technologies and their role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. PNAI's recommendations and report will be presented and discussed at the 18th annual IGF meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in October 2023. 

1.1 The IGF Policy Network on AI

PNAI work focuses on AI and related aspects of data governance. The policy network seeks to learn from and elevate AI governance frameworks, principles and policies being developed in and for the Majority World and Latinate languages, and to bring the IGF’s multi-stakeholder community together, gather and synthesize knowledge in the community. Participation in and contribution to PNAI are open to everyone. As a Policy Network under the IGF, PNAI seeks to build in-depth understanding of the topic, raise awareness and prompt cooperation across regions and stakeholder groups. The impact lies in the ability to facilitate discussion across stakeholder groups, facilitating a common understanding and inspiring and informing decision makers. A Multi-stakeholder Working Group, consisting of experts, supports transforming the PNAI community's perspectives into actionable measures and recommendations.

PNAI emerged from the request of the community: the Messages from the 2022 annual IGF meeting held in Addis Ababa conclude that the “IGF could be used as a platform for developing cooperation mechanisms on artificial intelligence. A policy network on artificial intelligence could be considered for the upcoming work streams in order to review the implementation of different principles with appropriate tools and metrics.” PNAI was launched in May 2023. The PNAI’s work on AI and related aspects of data governance builds on previous discussions, reports, and the wealth of knowledge within the IGF community. Over the past years, the IGF has discussed topics including AI use by social media platforms and content moderation, dangers such as manipulation, deception and mis- and disinformation, transparency needs in the operation and reporting of algorithmic systems, and necessary principles of rule of law, human rights, democratic values and diversity in the governance of AI.

1.2 Multistakeholder process adopted to develop recommendations on AI

This report was developed through exploration and multi-stakeholder discussions in the PNAI community. The PNAI work and meetings are open for everyone to participate in. The information was shared through the PNAI website and open mailing lists. Invitations and updates were also shared widely through IGF mailing lists and social media channels as well as community updates through the IGF website. Further PNAI community members circulated invites and information of the work being done within their communities and stakeholder groups.

The work towards the report was structured in five phases: The first phase of the work was ‘open dialogue’, where the group defined three thematic focus areas for the report and agreed on a report outline. Early discussions on the PNAI held in spring 2023 highlighted the importance of focusing the dialogue and work on selected topics rather than striving to cover all areas relevant to AI. For the PNAI’s first output report to bring value to the global AI dialogue, the aim should be to provide deep-dives areas that are central to fostering responsible AI development globally. Through an open brainstorming exercise, analysis and several commenting and input rounds the following thematic areas emerged: (i) Interoperability of global AI governance; (ii) AI gender and race; and (iii) AI and environment. The PNAI set up three sub-groups each dedicated to developing and drafting one of the three topical chapters of this report.

Once the topics were selected, the “information gathering” phase began. This took place through desktop research, engaging with invited expert speakers in the PNAI monthly calls and by tapping in the expertise of PNAI members. ‘Drafting the report’ phase consisted of writing and editing the report together. The thematic drafting teams led the way and shared progress for comments and suggestions in the broader policy network meetings. The fourth phase of the process was ‘consultation’ where the draft PNAI report was shared with the wider IGF community for comments and suggestions. Finally, after editing based on the consultation input, the report was finalized and published to be discussed in the IGF 2023 annual meeting in October 2023.

1.3 Structure of the report 

The following chapter ‘Exploring AI and related aspects of data governance’ sets the scene and presents the Global South lens selected for the report. The chapter also describes the emergence of generative AI. The remainder of the report is structured around three thematic chapters each addressing one key topic relevant to AI and related data governance issues. Each chapter presents and assesses existing policy measures relevant to the topic, proposes next steps, and shares recommendations based on the multistakeholder discussions.

The first topical chapter, ‘Interoperability of AI governance’, delves to study the convergence and divergence among the different AI regulations being drafted by countries and regions; identify the AI development and policymaking gap and   the challenges in strengthening global interoperability of AI governance towards AI that is   security, reliable, robust, fair, accountable and respecting human rights and innovation. It compares and identify good practices and bottom-up initiatives that foster interoperability in AI governance, and proposes eight steps for further actions.

The following chapter, ‘Framing AI Lifecycle for gender and race inclusion’, focuses on AI and gender, as well as AI and race. Do AI systems and harmful biases reinforce racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia in society? Under which circumstances could AI be a force for good at improving gender and racial equality? What could be done to ensure that today’s AI systems are a positive force in achieving that equality?

The third topical chapter ‘Governing AI for a Just Twin Transition” takes a deep dive into the nexus of AI, data governance, and the environment, through the lens of  two case studies. The purpose of this chapter is to comprehensively delve into the intricate interplay of AI, data governance, and the environment.

The concluding section of the report summarizes the conclusions and recommendations of the Policy Network on AI.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Test comment

Testing if the form is working!

0 People voted for this

Test comment

Testing if the form is working!

0 People voted for this

Test comment

Testing if the form is working!

0 People voted for this

Test comment

Testing if the form is working!

0 People voted for this

AI Ecosystem to lead the world

With the evolution of AI and its applications, there is a need to build this ecosystem, starting from educating the developed/developing countries by introducing AI as a curriculum like Computer Science was introduced in the past. It also needs  to regulate by building consensus among various governments, to mitigate pitfalls associated with generative AI. 

0 People voted for this

AI Ecosystem to lead the world

With the evolution of AI and its applications, there is a need to build this ecosystem, starting from educating the developed/developing countries by introducing AI as a curriculum like Computer Science was introduced in the past. It also needs  to regulate by building consensus among various governments, to mitigate pitfalls associated with generative AI. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user jamila_19985

Comments for Introduction

Introduction

Para 1:
Footnote 1: the report should be based on the Unesco Recommendation which is more representative as it was adopted by all Unesco member states and more updated than the OECD one.

Eliminate: and its applications are transforming every walk of life. From smart homes and digital assistants to personalized learning or identifying medical conditions in CT-scans, AI is rapidly impacting our lives.
Justification: a Global South perspective implies the acknowledgement of inequities and avoiding generalizations/universalizations that may not reflect a diversity of realities.

Change: If developed and deployed responsibly, AI can be used to for example deliver more effective government services tailored to the needs of citizens, by improving transport services, health services, and infrastructure. Powered by quality data, AI contributes to cutting-edge innovations that aid technological development across sectors. Applications of AI and their impact transcend national boundaries and national or local interests. AI is an essential tool in tackling the global challenges and accelerating the progress towards reaching the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. AI can accelerate action aimed at improving social welfare, environmental stewardship and sustainable economic growth.
For: If developed and deployed ethically and in respect with human rights, AI can be an essential tool in tackling the global challenges and accelerating the progress
towards reaching the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Justification: This paragraph is too long and should be more focused on aspects that are already validated by international standards.

Para 3
Change: AI can be leveraged to analyze climate data, predict climate patterns, and optimize energy use, that can identify vulnerable regions, assess risks, and develop strategies for climate adaptation, for the most vulnerable. Paradoxically, the environmental impact of AI in the context of data storage, computation, and energy consumption, is a growing concern.
For: Additionally, while AI could be leveraged to assist in the combat of climate change, its environmental impact derived from intense energy consumption and mineral exploitation is a growing concern.
Justification: Improve the text cohesion.

Para 4
Eliminate all paragraph
Justification: it lacks references to the affirmations regarding the use of AI for climate adaptation and widely escapes the purpose of the introduction going too deep into a topic that will be addressed in the proper chapter.

Para 6
Change: It is vital to guide AI technologies, their development, uptake and use, in a responsible direction.
For: It is vital that the development, deployment and governance of AI is grounded in the respect for human rights.
Justification: the respect for human rights is an obligation for states and the private sector.

Para 7
Eliminate: and changemakers in the AI field
Justification: redundant and imprecise term

Eliminate: ’s future work on AI-enabled technologies
Justification: redundant

Eliminate: the UN is promoting ethical development and application of AI and has for example committed to support AI-related capacity building for developing countries and broader stakeholder engagement on AI.
Justification: it is redundant since the following text accounts for UN actions in a more precise way and with proper references.

Para 8
Change: PNAI’s work and this report contribute to the UN's Global Digital Compact
For: PNAI’s work and this report hope to contribute to the UN's Global Digital Compact
Justification: be more precise since the process for contributions to the GDC has already closed.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user jamila_19985

Comments for Introduction

Introduction

Para 1:
Footnote 1: the report should be based on the Unesco Recommendation which is more representative as it was adopted by all Unesco member states and more updated than the OECD one.

Eliminate: and its applications are transforming every walk of life. From smart homes and digital assistants to personalized learning or identifying medical conditions in CT-scans, AI is rapidly impacting our lives.
Justification: a Global South perspective implies the acknowledgement of inequities and avoiding generalizations/universalizations that may not reflect a diversity of realities.

Change: If developed and deployed responsibly, AI can be used to for example deliver more effective government services tailored to the needs of citizens, by improving transport services, health services, and infrastructure. Powered by quality data, AI contributes to cutting-edge innovations that aid technological development across sectors. Applications of AI and their impact transcend national boundaries and national or local interests. AI is an essential tool in tackling the global challenges and accelerating the progress towards reaching the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. AI can accelerate action aimed at improving social welfare, environmental stewardship and sustainable economic growth.
For: If developed and deployed ethically and in respect with human rights, AI can be an essential tool in tackling the global challenges and accelerating the progress
towards reaching the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Justification: This paragraph is too long and should be more focused on aspects that are already validated by international standards.

Para 3
Change: AI can be leveraged to analyze climate data, predict climate patterns, and optimize energy use, that can identify vulnerable regions, assess risks, and develop strategies for climate adaptation, for the most vulnerable. Paradoxically, the environmental impact of AI in the context of data storage, computation, and energy consumption, is a growing concern.
For: Additionally, while AI could be leveraged to assist in the combat of climate change, its environmental impact derived from intense energy consumption and mineral exploitation is a growing concern.
Justification: Improve the text cohesion.

Para 4
Eliminate all paragraph
Justification: it lacks references to the affirmations regarding the use of AI for climate adaptation and widely escapes the purpose of the introduction going too deep into a topic that will be addressed in the proper chapter.

Para 6
Change: It is vital to guide AI technologies, their development, uptake and use, in a responsible direction.
For: It is vital that the development, deployment and governance of AI is grounded in the respect for human rights.
Justification: the respect for human rights is an obligation for states and the private sector.

Para 7
Eliminate: and changemakers in the AI field
Justification: redundant and imprecise term

Eliminate: ’s future work on AI-enabled technologies
Justification: redundant

Eliminate: the UN is promoting ethical development and application of AI and has for example committed to support AI-related capacity building for developing countries and broader stakeholder engagement on AI.
Justification: it is redundant since the following text accounts for UN actions in a more precise way and with proper references.

Para 8
Change: PNAI’s work and this report contribute to the UN's Global Digital Compact
For: PNAI’s work and this report hope to contribute to the UN's Global Digital Compact
Justification: be more precise since the process for contributions to the GDC has already closed.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user jamila_19985

Comments on 1.1. The IGF Policy Network on AI

Para 1
Eliminate: The policy network seeks to learn from and elevate AI governance frameworks, principles and policies being developed in and for the Majority World and Latinate languages, and to bring the IGF’s multi-stakeholder community together, gather and synthesize knowledge in the community.
Justification: redundant. The continuation of the paragraph will better define the purposes of PNAI as a Policy Network within IGF: "PNAI seeks to build in-depth understanding of the topic, raise awareness and prompt cooperation across regions and stakeholder groups."

0 People voted for this

CHAPTER 2: Exploring AI and related aspects of data governance

[Pages 9 - 14 in the Draft report, please read the pdf draft report to see pictures and footnotes]

The PNAI community selected AI and related aspects of data governance as the topic of this report and the group’s dialogues in the first months. The interdependence between AI and data is a critical nexus for addressing key societal challenges related to interoperability of AI governance, gender equity throughout the AI lifecycle, and environmental sustainability. Effective policies should strike a balance between fostering AI innovation and safeguarding the rights and well-being of individuals and the planet. By recognizing and acting upon this interdependence, we can harness the full potential of AI while ensuring a more equitable and sustainable future for all. Furthermore, robust data governance is needed to mitigate information asymmetries, ensure data quality, and address multidimensional power dynamics to drive informed climate adaptation, resource management, and conservation efforts, essential for addressing the biggest challenges of our time.

PNAI’s work on this report started from the observation that there is a plethora of AI governance frameworks, ethical AI policy approaches, documents, strategies and forums, but the vast majority of these have been developed in or for the Global North. The policy network set as one of its goals to look at AI and related aspects of data governance from the Global South Perspective. Inspired by the leaps in technological development that have dominated the headlines at the time of writing this report, PNAI decided to dive deeper into the world of generative AI technologies. Setting the scene for the report and its recommendations, this chapter presents the Global South lens selected for the report, and provides an introduction to the world of generative AI.

2.1 Viewing AI policy debates through the Global South lens

The Roadmap for Digital Cooperation issued by the United Nations Secretary-General in 2020 noted a lack of representation and inclusiveness in the international coordination and collaboration on AI. The Roadmap’s call for diverse stakeholder participation in global digital cooperation is particularly relevant if we consider the underrepresentation of Global South countries in the drafting of AI principles. A 2019 study by ETH Zurich researchers found that the USA, UK and Japan alone were responsible for most of the 84 ethics and AI documents identified for analysis. Although the sample analyzed then does not represent the current landscape of AI standards and guidelines, it is clear that certain countries and regions are responsible for most of the global dialogue and development in this area. AI ethics principles do shape policy debates at global, regional and national levels, but oftentimes, such supposedly “global” processes ignore contextual particularities including concerns and needs of the Global South.

In addition to the underrepresentation of Global South in AI policy documents identified at global level, it is important to shed light to the questions of inclusiveness and representation when developing AI policies in and for regions or countries. Evidence from Latin America, for instance, shows that public participation was limited in the drafting processes of national AI strategies. The processes in general failed to involve the groups which can be most affected by such technologies. This is the finding of a 2022 study that describes the scant participation of women and the failure of government institutions to provide disaggregated data which would demonstrate the representation of priority groups.

The findings of the studies are in stark contrast with the ongoing vibrant discussions on global AI governance, numerous initiatives to develop AI grounded in justice and equality and the research undertaken on the topic in  Global South countries. It also doesn’t take into account the key role such countries play across the AI value-chains, for example as providers of minerals that are fundamental for the development of their infrastructure, energy to sustain data centers, data and workforce to train algorithms or as final users of systems. The exclusion of Global South countries from policy debates on AI invisibilizes key priorities from discussion.

Global South participation in global AI policy debates is key. As highlighted in several international standards, AI governance, development and deployment should be discussed in different organizations, groups, parts of the world by experts, enthusiasts and laymen with different backgrounds. According to the UNESCO’s AI Ethics Recommendation, participation of different stakeholders throughout the AI system life cycle is necessary for inclusive approaches to AI governance, enabling the benefits to be shared by all, and to contribute to sustainable development. Otherwise, global inequalities between North and South tend to increase, as the AI industry is concentrated in a few developed countries and their systems are built from the extraction of value from less developed regions, including Africa and Latin America. Thus, building frameworks which guarantee sustainable, human rights-compliant AI requires both North-South and South-South collaborations.

The PNAI community seeks to learn from and elevate AI governance frameworks, principles and policies being developed in and for the Global South and non-latinate languages. With our growing global network, we can bring value to the AI dialogue by leveraging Global South perspectives, which are vital but typically missing or under-represented on AI policy debates. Hatched under the IGF network, PNAI can build on two decades of experience organizing global, multistakeholder discussions on digital governance. It can also benefit from the IGF’s concrete mechanisms for engaging the Global South through its more than 155 national and regional initiatives. 

At the same time, PNAI acknowledges the several imbalances that prevent Global South stakeholders from having a meaningful participation even in spaces built for inclusive worldwide participation, such as the IGF. These include limited funding to travel and precarious connectivity conditions to participate in events, the prioritization of English as the main language, among others. Global multilateral organizations committed to opening spaces for multistakeholder participation should take into account such inequalities in their design in order to foster true global dialogue and to ensure Global South perspective is included.

2.2 In the wake of generative AI

As stated, AI has significantly transformed, and continues to transform, our society. Recently, generative artificial intelligence has emerged to form one of the most promising and, at the same time, most controversial areas in AI development. Until recently, machine learning was mostly limited to predictive models (analyzing data to make predictions) while generative AI is a specialized branch of AI that focuses on learning from various data patterns with the purpose of creating new content. Systems powered by generative AI, such as Open AI’s ChatGPT and GPT-4, Anthropic’s Claude, or Google’s Bard, create texts, images, videos, music, software design, or scripting for test codes based on prompts by the user.

Due to its versatility, generative AI is increasingly employed across different areas including economy, social interaction, business, arts, and academia. Moreover, these tools can tackle repetitive tasks swiftly and efficiently, leading to a significant boost in productivity. Generative AI is expected to increase productivity across sectors, estimates show it could add USD 2.6 to 4.4 trillion annually to the global economy.

Generative AI carries the potential to benefit or harm vulnerable groups and communities. On the one hand, it makes possible personalized solutions.  Generative AI can for example help teachers create personalized lesson plans for each student. It assisting blind or low-vision people by turning images into text interpretation in numerous languages. These and many other linguistic or cultural adaptations make services more accessible. However, if the data used to train generative models is not representative, Generative AI could perpetuate stereotypes and biases, exacerbate discrimination, and increase inequality. AI developers and society in general must make a conscious effort to ensure that generative AI is developed and used in ways that empower underprivileged groups, rather than further marginalize them.

In the case of generative AI and Gender, there are high expectations to design algorithms that allow raising awareness on this topic. Therefore, the objective should be not only to use generative AI as a tool for the study, analysis, and promotion of gender issues but also to guarantee that these systems are trained with accurate and representative data linked to awareness, avoiding false content or information with discriminatory visions, thus contributing to a broader and fairer understanding of gender issues in today's society.

The ability of Generative AI to generate content, such as text and images, raises serious ethical concerns. It can be used for disinformation and other forms of digital manipulation. Speaking to the Security Council in July 2023, the UN Secretary-General highlighted the capabilities of new generative AI models, and warned about the risks that the advent of generative AI can bring, for example for disinformation and hate speech. Furthermore, the integrity of the information and the protection of personal data and individual privacy are at risk. It is essential to establish clear limits and regulations that protect individuals from possible abuse, without going against innovation.

Generative AI has the potential to democratize digital services, as it allows the creation and adaptation of content in an automated way. However, if not managed properly, it could lead to digital monopolies where a few companies control access to and use of generative technology. A truly open and free digital future demands that generative AI be developed and distributed in a transparent, equitable and accessible manner.

The digital age has led to the emergence of new challenges, especially manipulation, deception, and misinformation on the Internet. Therefore, generative AI emerges as a double-edged tool in this context. Although it can be a potential source of problems, it also presents itself as a viable solution to combat these same challenges. One of the most promising areas is generative AI’s ability to detect manipulations in digital content. While it is true that systems building on this technology are used to create text, images, or videos, they can also be developed and trained to identify anomalies or inconsistencies in the data. This can help detect false information, for example fake news, generated by this powerful technology. Disinformation can spread and influence public opinion at an alarming speed, therefore such tools need to be urgently developed and implemented.

Another concern to consider is fragmentation on the Internet, where algorithms personalize and limit the information that users have access to. This distinction can be counterproductive, as it reinforces existing opinions and limits exposure to diverse perspectives. Generative AI can be trained and used, to analyze broader patterns and understand context. Moreover, it can contribute to the creation of more balanced filters that present information in a more impartial way.

Finally, human rights can be affected or violated by misinformation or the construction of misleading narratives. To avoid these harmful practices, Generative Artificial Intelligence can be used to create content and verify its authenticity to ensure that the truth prevails. However, there is a risk of using this technology as a surveillance or repression tool by authoritarian regimes. Therefore, it is necessary to design an ethical framework and its implementation.

Generative AI has the potential to transform industries and society, to boost innovation across diverse fields, from arts to scientific research and empower individuals including marginalized groups. To ensure generative AI contributes towards a positive future, it is crucial to prioritize responsible design and release practices from the beginning. As generative AI continues to advance at an unprecedented pace, there is a need for collaboration among stakeholders to ensure that AI serves as a force for good.  The IGF Policy Network on AI promotes the debate on how to increase international cooperation among the stakeholders on  the use of  generative AI and related aspects of data governance.

2.3 Global multistakeholder dialogue is crucial in getting global AI governance right

Understanding AI’s future impact on societies is very difficult. It is known that governing and regulating a technology in development is always difficult but it is even more difficult later when the technology becomes deeply entrenched and its effect on society is better understood. Under these circumstances, making effective and informed decisions on AI is complex. Bringing in diverse perspectives and expertise can enhance understanding of the implications of AI in a holistic manner, it is necessary for developing relevant and applicable policy for the national and international context.  Multistakeholder approach facilitates the development of inclusive AI policies that help decision makers to consider diverse viewpoints  and  expertise,  prevent  capture  by  vested  interests,  and  counteract  polarization of policy discourse.

The multistakeholder dialogue is crucial for addressing AI’s policy evolution. But it is not easy to create spaces for truly global AI dialogue or reach stakeholder groups, including those with limited financial, grass-root organizations, from developing countries. Already in 2020 there were over 160 organizational, national and international sets of AI and governance principles worldwide but so far no common platform to bring these initiatives together. At the time of writing this report, PNAI is in its early stages, but is already bringing value to dialogues on AI governance as it is an open forum that brings diverse stakeholders from across the world together for timely discussions on AI. The impact of IGF’s intersessional activities, such as PNAI, comes from facilitating global discussion across stakeholder groups.

The private sector, the technical community and civil society should be involved from the beginning when making decisions on digital topics. Involving stakeholders across technical and non-technical communities, promoting inclusivity, and respecting the different cultural backgrounds are key components for designing a system approach to global AI governance. Multistakeholder engagement furthermore should meaningfully address concerns of various actors and consider power asymmetries between them. This PNAI report is developed by the PNAI multi-stakeholder community through a transparent process and an open consultation.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

AI and education, research and academics

I could not find any part of the document dedicated to the changes AI is bringing to education, research and academia. While there are some mentions of the impact on education, as well as the potential of AI in assisting students, these ideas are not fully developed. PNAI can consider dedicating at least a couple of paragraphs to this, and propose ways through which AI can be regulated in a way that leads to optimum learning outcomes for school students, college graduates and researchers, especially in developing countries. As AI affects millions of children and researchers across the world, this issue deserve a deeper examination. 

0 People voted for this

Issues with multistakeholderism

In the section 2.3. on multistakeholderism, there is an acknowledgement of the challenges of "including those with limited financial, grass-root organizations, from developing countries." While this is a step in the right direction, the section can be improved if PNAI considers engaging with Carr's 2015 paper titled "Power Plays in Global Internet Governance". In this paper Carr argues that multistakeholderism "reinforce[s] existing power relations rather than disrupt them." Carr adds that civil society "plays an important legitimising role for the other stakeholders". Even if actors from developing countries are involved in the multistakeholder process, as the PNAI document suggests, how do we ensure that this involvement is meaningful and not just for legitimising purpose?

0 People voted for this

Introducing IQ assessment and time-frame concept

The active incorporation of IQ ranking, which involves a meticulous assessment of the intelligence and decision-making capacities of AI systems. This process aims to ensure that these systems align harmoniously with human values and ethical principles, precluding any undue concentration of power or prejudiced decision-making.

The concept of a time frame for AI intelligence is limited and restrictive, as it doesn't account for the impact of technology on behavior and the subsequent influence on future generations.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user jamila_19985

Comment on 2.2 In the wake of generative AI

I suggest to eliminate this full section to the lack of trustworthy references and the set of potentially harmful and rights abusive proposals it contains (none of them referenced) - eg. for freedom of expression. It contradicts the Global South perspective adopted by the PNAI and several parts of the text.

In any case, below are some concrete suggestions for elimination.

Para 1
Eliminate: As stated, AI has significantly transformed, and continues to transform, our society. Recently,
Justification: avoid generalizations

General comment: This paragraph lacks trustworthy references, including for the definition of generative AI. The description in this paragraph doesn't account for much difference from traditional ML since "creating new content" is also a form of "predicting" combinations of words or images.

Para 3 and 4
Eliminate full paragraphs
Justification: all mentions to potential "benefits" of generative AI are a) assumptions rather than evidence; b) not new or necessary (eg. for more personalized lessons in education other methods which are not dependent from AI already exist and are currently being used). There is also no reference with evidence that the collection and processing of more data will result in more efficient generative AI systems.

Para 6
Eliminate: Generative AI has the potential to democratize digital services, as it allows the creation and adaptation of content in an automated way.
Justification: It is not clear the causal relation between democratization of digital services and automation.

Para 7
Eliminate the full paragraph
Justification: It lacks references and suggests a potentially very harmful use of Generative AI for the identification of "anomalies and inconsistencies" in data as if those would be indicators of desinformation. Numerous studies regarding content moderation evidence that such uses of AI can result in further discrimination, exclusion and punishment against the expression of the most marginalized groups and people resulting in an even more concentrated digital sphere.

Para 10
Eliminate: To avoid these harmful practices, Generative Artificial Intelligence can be used to create content and verify its authenticity to ensure that the truth prevails.
Justification: No automated system will ensure any truth and this is direct opposition to international standards on freedom of expression.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user jamila_19985

Comments on 2.3 Global multistakeholder dialogue (...)

Para 1
Eliminate: Understanding AI’s future impact on societies is very difficult. It is known that governing and regulating a technology in development is always difficult but it is even more difficult later when the technology becomes deeply entrenched and its effect on society is better understood.
Under these circumstances,
Justification: consicion and objectivity

Para 2
Eliminate: But it is not easy to create spaces for truly global AI dialogue or reach stakeholder groups, including those with limited financial, grass-root organizations, from developing countries.
Justification: This is unprecise and repetitive to something said before. It suggests that only grassroots and devoping countries have difficulties to participate in global events, while this is not true: even small companies have budget limitations. Also, other forms of exclusion (beyond economic) occurr preventing effective participation from women, LGBT+ groups and others even when they are able to be present.

0 People voted for this

CHAPTER 3: Interoperability of AI governance

[Pages 15 - 26 in the Draft report, please read the pdf draft report to see pictures and footnotes]

There are several approaches to regulating AI globally. The European Union’s (EU) AI Act to regulate development and use of AI is currently under negotiation to be adopted. China has been fast to turn proposals into rules, and countries including Brazil, Canada, and the United States are actively making plans and pursuing their strategies to govern AI. Approaches to regulate AI take different forms, for example international treaties, multi-stakeholder approaches, regulatory sandboxes, sectoral approaches, ethical guidelines, national legislation, private standards, technological solutions, open source collaborations, industry self-regulation, and technological neutrality. 

Interoperability is often understood as the ability of different systems to communicate and work seamlessly together. In this chapter, we explore interoperability of AI governance in the global level. As noted in the introduction, AI and its societal impact transcend boundaries of countries and regions. We argue that more emphasis should be put in analysing if and how the different initiatives to regulate and govern AI across the world could work together and through that become more impactful. This chapter explores interoperability of AI governance from a multi-stakeholder view.

We start by defining interoperability in the context of AI governance. This is a critical step in clarifying the focus and scope of our multi-stakeholder writing team’s work. Further, a clear definition is needed to integrate both the technical and non-technical elements to the discussion.  We recognise the need to support effective cooperation and communication that is needed for building trust and a shared understanding.

Our definition of interoperability in AI governance is a framework that brings together of three key aspects: (1) the substantive tools, measures and mechanisms involved in guiding and developing AI, (2) multistakeholder interactions and interconnections, and,  (3) agreed ways to communicate and cooperate. All three are necessary to support a common understanding, interpretation and implementation of transborder governance of AI. The definition and our interpretation of interoperability in this context is not based on a systematic survey but was developed through consensus in our group consisting of team members from civil society, technical experts, government officials and private sector representatives.

When it comes to the interoperability of AI governance, there are a number of challenges we need to face and address, including: Ethical and regulatory Considerations ‒ Interoperability in AI governance raises ethical concerns related to bias, fairness, transparency, and accountability. Different jurisdictions may have varying regulations that impact data sharing, privacy, and algorithmic behavior. Standardization ‒ The absence of universally accepted standards, principles and norms for interoperability in AI governance complicates efforts to create a cohesive framework.         Semantic Interoperability ‒ Beyond technical compatibility, AI systems must also achieve semantic interoperability. This involves a shared understanding of the meaning, intent, nuances, and context of data and actions. 

We live in a globally interconnected world and to unlock the full potential of AI we need increased interoperability in global AI governance. Ensuring harmonious coexistence among AI systems has the potential to revolutionize industries, enhance human capabilities, and drive innovation towards a more connected future.

3.1 Existing policy measures

In this section, we provide examples of international policies that have addressed interoperability of AI governance. We then move on to describe interoperability policies and projects in the Global South to understand and demonstrate the commonalities and differences in technology development as well as AI governance capacity between the South-South and North-South.

Our aim is to illustrate the most prevalent types of policies, practices, and issues. The examples we present are not exhaustive, and this report chapter is not meant to provide a full picture of the current situation globally. In this report chapter, we seek to go beyond the most cited examples of national and regional activities in governing and regulating AI, and draw from the wide expertise in our multistakeholder group to highlight regions and countries at different stages on their AI path.[1] We recognize there are disparities between different regions and countries in terms of activities relevant to our topic, and we use the term “maturity level” to describe different stages of AI development and governance.

3.1.1 Examples of international initiatives supporting interoperability of AI governance

United Nations Secretary General. The latest developments on the level of the United Nations were voiced in July 2023, when the United Nations Secretary-General supported  proposals to establish an international agency akin to the International Atomic Energy Agency  for  AI in his remarks to the UN Security Council. The organization would for example establish mechanisms of monitoring and governing AI. In August 2023 the first steps were taken to establish a UN high-level AI advisory body on AI. The group will undertake analysis and advance recommendations for the international governance of AI. This could include ways to ensure AI development and governance is in line with human rights, the rule of law, and the common good.  The group is expected to report back on the options for global AI governance by the end of 2023.

UNESCO’s Recommendations on the Ethics of AI emphasize multistakeholder and adaptive governance. They call for the adoption of open standards and interoperability to facilitate collaboration and meaningful participation by marginalized groups, communities, and individuals. Moreover, the recommendations champion the rule of law as the underlying principle of AI governance and promote capacity-building for judicial operators and civil servants. Coupled with funds and equal regional participation, this capacitation is essential to empower multiple stakeholders to coordinate among themselves and engage in meaningful debate. Ultimately, these measures can enhance cooperation, the uptake of interoperable governance tools and the legitimacy of governance fora including standard development organizations, industry fora, national legislatives and international organizations.

The OECD works to promote interoperability of AI risk management frameworks. OECD published a note on Interoperability of privacy and data protection frameworks in 2021. The study found commonalities at the level of principles across privacy legal regime and convergence within and between legal instruments but noted that the approaches to data regulation vary significantly across countries and types of data. Measures to foster and promote interoperability of governance can include international and bilateral trade agreements, mutual recognition agreements, regional and international cooperation policies, research and development agreements between countries, codes of conduct, and private sector initiatives, binding corporate rules, and certificates.

G7 countries recognise the importance of interoperability in building trust in digital economies, creating open and enabling environments for responsible AI innovation. The countries support inclusive stakeholder participation in international standards. G7 countries aim to raise awareness and strengthen capacity building among stakeholders who participate in international AI technical standards development efforts and encourage adoption of international AI standards. G7 intend to collaborate with international organizations and initiatives (including the OECD, the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence GPAI, and UNESCO) and enhance engagement with developing and emerging economies to adopt and implement the OECD AI Principles to reinforce human rights and fundamental freedoms. They encourage collective efforts to promote interoperability between AI governance frameworks around the world for supporting AI innovation globally.

Some notable examples of established regional initiatives with international impact include:

At the Council of Europe (CoE), its Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAI) is drafting a legally binding instrument for the development, design and application of AI systems based on the CoE's standards for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and to promote innovation.  The latest draft version of the document was published in July 2023 to serve as the basis for further negotiations of the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law.

The EU is finalizing its AI Act and has also been active in international dialogue with partners outside the EU. An example of a cooperation mechanism is the EU-US Trade and Technology Council (TTC). It was established in 2021 as a transatlantic forum to foster cooperation in trade and technology. TTC’s Joint Roadmap for Trustworthy AI and Risk Management published in 2022 establishes tools, methodologies, and approaches to promote its trustworthy use of AI to support democratic values and human rights. TTC pledges to advance shared and interoperable terminologies and taxonomies (for example developing interoperable definitions of ‘trustworthy’ or ‘bias’), cooperate in developing international technical standards and tools for trustworthy AI and risk management, and, share knowledge in monitoring and measuring existing and emerging AI risks. In addition to the TTC, a successful EU interoperability framework is the European Digital Innovation Hubs (EDIH) network that is built up bottom-up driven by regional stakeholders. It provides digital support and interoperability in governance (not only technologically) of services throughout the EU. Federation of services via marketplaces are becoming the de facto standards for AI services. This way, cooperation frameworks in the EU are shaping indeed interoperability in future AI services and applications.

3.1.2 Policies and projects in the Global South on interoperability of AI governance

China. In recent years, China has conducted explorations and practices in the field of AI governance. It has established a policy framework and regulations covering R&D and ethics including the principles of “harmony and friendship, fairness and justice, inclusive sharing, respect for privacy, security and control, shared responsibility, open collaboration, and agile governance” of AI development. The China academy of information and communications technology (CAICT)   drafted  the “Self-discipline Convention for AI” based on analysis of domestic and foreign AI ethics, laws, and strategies.The Chinese government’s position paper on Strengthening Ethical Governance of Artificial Intelligence advocates the concepts of "people-oriented" and "intelligence for good" and ensuring all countries shared benefits of AI. China encourages transnational, multi-cultural as well as multi-disciplinary exchanges and collaboration in AI, and promote participation of all countries in the major international AI ethics discussion and in international rule-making. China sees that governments should strengthen the ethical supervision of international cooperative research in AI. The position paper further calls for an international agreement on the ethics of AI to be formed on the basis of universal participation, and for the formulating an international AI governance framework, standards and norms with broad consensus while fully respecting the principles and practices of AI governance in different countries.

In August 2023, the BRICS group announced their intention to establish an AI study group to monitor AI’s development and progress, expand cooperation and information exchange on AI, develop an AI governance framework to ensure the safety, reliability, controllability, equality of the AI technology.

India. In recent years, various government Committees, Ministries and bodies in India have released reports and white papers to regulate and standardize AI. The 2020 Indian Artificial Intelligence Stack discussion paper identifies a need to develop uniform standards, such as various interface standards and India’s AI stack. The stack will be structured across all sectors and use standards developed in line with internationally agreed principles to ensure a healthier and safer environment for the evolution of AI. Two white papers by NITI Aayong (think tank of the Government of India) on responsible AI highlight that the principles for responsible AI should be grounded in the nation’s values and should be compatible with international standards. They should ensure a flexible approach to promote innovation and be identified based on relevant social, economic, political and cultural factors. International standards may be leveraged when the goals are common. Private sector and research institutions will create frameworks for compliance with AI standards and devise cost effective compliance with AI standards.

ASEAN. The 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has announced the development of an ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics. The guide is expected to be adopted in 2024. In its 2025 Digital Masterplan, ASEAN focuses on the interoperability of data sharing frameworks within and beyond the region (for example cooperating with APEC or looking in to the European GDPR). Also improving the interoperability of e-government services is a key aim of ASEAN, especially in digital ID and e-commerce services.

Pan-Asia Initiatives. In June 2023 Singapore launched the AI Verify Foundation to harness the collective power and contributions of the global opensource community to develop AI testing tools for the responsible use of AI. The Foundation (and its more than 60 general members from across the globe) aim to foster an open-source community to contribute to AI testing frameworks, code base, standards and best practices and create a neutral platform for open collaboration and idea-sharing on testing and governing AI. In September 2022, the Technology for Sustainable Development Goals Alliance for Asia (Tech4SDG) was established as a non-profit, non-governmental international organization. It aims to build regional consensus on areas including AI ethics and tech standards, through cross-sectoral exchanges and cooperations in Asia.

Africa. Globally, Africa still catching up to many parts of the world when it comes to designing AI strategies, governance frameworks, and AI regulation. Tortoise Global AI index uses “government strategy” as one of its pillars contributing to the global ranking. In the 2023 edition of the index, several African countries appear in the top 62 for government strategy, including for example South Africa, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Kenya, and Nigeria. In 2021, Smart Africa, an AI initiative in collaboration with the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), published a blueprint for the development of AI strategies in Africa. In the same year, the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR) adopted a resolution urging governments to ‘work towards a comprehensive legal and ethical governance framework for AI technologies’, and ‘develop a regional regulatory framework that ensured that these technologies respond to the needs of the people of the continent’.

In 2023, the African Union (AU) Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD) and the AU High-Level Panel on Emerging Technologies (APET) drafted the “African Union Artificial Intelligence (AU-AI) Continental Strategy for Africa”. As countries progress in AI implementation at different levels, the role of AUDA-NEPAD Agency will be to monitor the developments and ensure that all member states are moving towards a common goal in the AI sector. This is important as it would enable countries to pool resources, develop common frameworks and standards and share access to data. Furthermore, global cooperation will also be needed to ensure that Africa’s policies and strategies are aligned with other parts of the world.

Caribbean. AI adoption is low even among the large digital leaders in the region.Caribbean countries are in the embryonic stage of planning AI strategies and policies, as most are concentrating their resources on data governance, including privacy and data protection. The Caribbean realizes the deployment of AI will bring efficiencies to existing industry sectors and new industry opportunities. The Caribbean SIDS’s (Small Island Development States) are aware of the risks and harms of AI to human-rights, culture, every-day existence and industry and see that AI governance should be centered around “do no harm” principle and enhancing safety. A policy roadmap was produced by the Caribbean AI Initiative (conducted by the UNESCO Cluster Office for the Caribbean and the Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica (BCJ) with the support of UNESCO IFAP) prepared a policy roadmap in 2021. It proposed that Caribbean SIDs should take a multi-stakeholder regional approach to establishing regional common values and principles. It is also proposed that cross-border regulations be developed and executed. As to interoperability, the policy roadmap recommends the formation of national and regional AI Governance bodies to manage and monitor the development of standards, code of conduct, procurement, supply guidelines, and design principles. To strengthen legislation and regulations, the roadmap also proposes an AI Appeal Court and Online Dispute Resolution System.

Latin America. The Latin American context related to AI governance and regulation is diverse and in the early stages of development. Multiple countries made progress in adopting or drafting AI strategies. A first wave in 2019 and 2020, included Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Uruguay, Mexico and Peru. Some strategies (for example Argentina, Chile, and Colombia) did not reach normative status and were dismissed after political changes.  There is no regional consensus for a common AI strategy and governance for Latin America. The governance landscape is very fragmented, with different levels of maturity and implementation. Latin America faces challenges in terms of regional coordination and struggles to present a unified voice in international forums.

3.2 Cooperation policies and initiatives suggestions

The previous pages   were dedicated to already existing policies and showed that laws and regulations form a heterogeneous framework and an interoperability divide. In this section, we present policies and collaboration advice that could facilitate or advance interoperability in the governance of AI for the Global South. In contrast to the previous sub-chapter which looked at each country individually, in the following pages we grouped together countries and regions that face similar challenges. Cooperation is a key component for interoperability. In addition to state policies and regulations, bottom-up and collaborative initiatives may become de facto standards and regulation boosters.

Internationally, we observe a wave of development in interoperability frameworks of AI governance. This is mainly driven by the OECD, UN, regional alliances as well as Standard Developing Organizations. Multistakeholder cooperation and collaboration, capacity building, and international standard adoptions are the key elements endorsed by them for enhancing interoperability. An emphasis is placed on convergence at the level of principles and legal instruments but divergence in approaches of regulation in AI interoperability. Other divergences include scope of cooperation and the role given to industry or private sector. The proposals we assessed range from creating new independent international bodies specifically dedicated to AI to advocating for more regional or bilateral partnerships. Or the establishment of a global observatory, incorporating a blend of existing resources and frameworks with fresh initiatives. UN proposed a global AI watchdog in July 2023.  While private sector/industries expertise and insights are invaluable, we need to remain cautious in allowing them to dominate norm-setting or enforcement processes to prevent potential regulatory capture.

Latin America, Africa and Caribbean countries.  To assess the scenario of the interoperability of AI governance in Latin America, we need to remember that the discussion on regulating AI is in its early stages. Interoperability of AI governance can be considered a second-order discussion, given the lack of maturity of AI public policies in the region. Latin American governments will meet in October 2023 in Santiago de Chile to discuss regional measures regarding AI ethics and governance. The meeting will be organized by UNESCO and the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean (CAF) and could be the beginning of a regional initiative to determine the future of AI governance in the region and to foster collaboration among different countries and organizations. Six concrete ways are suggested by academics to strengthen regional collaboration and promote AI governance interoperability, and an AI Alliance in Latin America is also recommended. In the Latin American context, the discussion on AI principles has included some civil society perspectives. Still, the processes of implementing such recommendations or coming up with harder regulatory approaches lack a robust CSO perspective. Moving forward, a more inclusive multisectoral approach is needed for the region.

In Africa, there are initial approaches to regional and global cooperation and joint strategies, but concrete results have yet to be achieved. It will be interesting to see how the AU member states will review and validate the current draft of the African Union Artificial Intelligence Continental Strategy for Africa. A continentally adopted version is expected to be launched at the AU Summit of African Heads of State and Government in January 2024.

China, India and Asia. Technologically capable countries in Asia are relatively advanced in AI policymaking, initiating bottom-up cross-country and cross-sector R&D projects, as well as participating in international standard settings. Like their African counterparts, they also call for balancing the individual countries’ domestic practices, values and principles in the building of consensus on interoperability of AI governance at the global level. Compared with the hard law approach, the R&D research exchanges or collaborations in the development of self-regulatory code (soft law) seem to be more flexible and feasible in facilitating and advancing the interoperability of global AI governance for those countries. However, the various rapid developments of global policies and initiatives in interoperability means that they need to strengthen their participation in regional and global regulatory AI discussions and development processes. Regulators, researchers and enterprises should be incentivized by programmes such as funding, rewards, training etc. to participate in international regulation-making. 

3.3 Recommendations on interoperability of AI governance

In the context of the continued and rapid development of generative AI, we acknowledge the strategic importance of strengthening the interoperability of AI governance and at the same time fostering a pro-innovation environment for. In addition to that, we need to avoid an "out-of-control race", in the development of AI technology itself and in the governance of AI.

Our multi-stakeholder group proposes eight steps to increase interoperability of AI governance:

  • Accurately define and agree on, what needs to be addressed on global level. This could include already as well as emerging risks related to AI, with focus on issues that have occurred or been observed in practice. To achieve interoperability in AI governance, we propose that the development of regional and/or global regulatory policies, guidelines and principles should be agile, reflexive, and inclusive, and evolve according to the AI maturity level. 
  • Encourage public and private investment in governance infrastructure. Research institutions, NGOs and enterprises should be encouraged to conduct international research on technologies, tools that will improve security, reliability, robustness, interpretability, fairness, and accountability of AI. This can be done for example via dedicated funding programs. International funding programs with focus on interoperability of AI governance should be established. 
  • Strengthen legislative cooperation. This can be achieved using various instruments that promote international cooperation. National regulators should strengthen cross-border and pan-industry cooperation. They should ensure AI governance frameworks facilitate inclusiveness and a level playing field for all to benefit of AI. Unnecessary costs and fragmentations due to different regional requirements should be avoided as far as possible. AI legislation should always be in line with human rights principles, norms and international standards. 
  • Foster regional multi-stakeholder initiatives and interlink them globally. In this way, both regional and global cooperation will be strengthened. We need to allow different speeds of cooperation based on different levels of maturity and public policy needs. We should not  lose sight of the goal of increased interoperability of AI governance.
  • Strengthen capacity building. Providing training opportunities for stakeholders through workshops, conferences and online courses can help speed up the knowledge-building. This is necessary to help meaningful participation in AI governance discussions. 
  • Reduce regional disparities to encourage increases in maturity level. This requires a comprehensive political, scientific and industrial exchange and cooperation. Proven best practices from regions (for example, national or regional AI strategies, research programs, industry guidelines or frameworks) should be selected with interoperability in mind for adaptability and usability for regions with lower levels of maturity.
  • Monitor and evaluate progress in reaching policy goals set on national, regional and global levels to advance interoperability of AI governance. It is essential to continuously track progress made against goals set out earlier, identify areas requiring improvement, adjust strategies accordingly, and evaluate overall effectiveness of implemented measures.
  • Uphold and strengthen the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process, its regional and global multistakeholder initiatives including the Policy Network on AI.  We need to foster spaces for open, transparent, inclusive and transborder consensus and capacity building of AI governance.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Time line frame for Governance

 

In addition, AI governance stands resolutely committed to addressing the myriad challenges and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence as we endeavor to construct a brighter future. It assumes a proactive stance, extending beyond immediate advantages, and embarks on a thorough examination of all parameters that could potentially pose threats to society within a timeframe. This forward-looking perspective assumes paramount significance, given the dynamic and ever-evolving nature of our world, where technological advancements can yield profound and extensive consequences.

0 People voted for this

Time line frame for Governance

 

In addition, AI governance stands resolutely committed to addressing the myriad challenges and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence as we endeavor to construct a brighter future. It assumes a proactive stance, extending beyond immediate advantages, and embarks on a thorough examination of all parameters that could potentially pose threats to society within a timeframe. This forward-looking perspective assumes paramount significance, given the dynamic and ever-evolving nature of our world, where technological advancements can yield profound and extensive consequences.

0 People voted for this

Time line frame for Governance

 

In addition, AI governance stands resolutely committed to addressing the myriad challenges and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence as we endeavor to construct a brighter future. It assumes a proactive stance, extending beyond immediate advantages, and embarks on a thorough examination of all parameters that could potentially pose threats to society within a timeframe. This forward-looking perspective assumes paramount significance, given the dynamic and ever-evolving nature of our world, where technological advancements can yield profound and extensive consequences.

0 People voted for this

Evaluate the necessity-inclusion flow of AI for balance efforts

In its essence, AI governance aspires to leverage the boundless potential of artificial intelligence while remaining steadfast in safeguarding against potential risks. It envisions the establishment of a harmonious coexistence between humanity and AI technologies. When wielded conscientiously, AI emerges as a potent instrument for augmenting learning, productivity, and overall well-being. It empowers individuals to rediscover the pleasures of learning and relaxation, nurturing positive moral values that can enrich society at large. By harnessing the capabilities of AI for the greater good, we can collaboratively labor towards the construction of a more prosperous and inclusive society.

As Anoop Kumar Prasad aptly stated, "Artificial Intelligence, or said Human Assisted, is a mere tool for lessening cognitive load, just like using a vehicle to carry heavy loads from one place to another."

0 People voted for this

Suggestion for updating OECD work on interoperability

OECD’s AI Principles, adopted in May 2019 as the first intergovernmental standard on AI – were designed as flexible, future-proof and values-based to facilitate interoperability on AI governance. With foundational principles such as human-centric values and fairness, transparency and explainability, robustness and safety, and accountability, they remain relevant and provide important guidance for the design, deployment and use of AI systems, and for governments in shaping their AI policies. Through the OECD.AI Network of Experts workstream on AI risk, the OECD is working on promoting interoperability of AI risk management frameworks by identifying common guideposts to assess AI risk and impact for Trustworthy AI. The goal is to help implement effective and accountable trustworthy AI systems by promoting global consistency through mapping existing and developing core standards, frameworks and guidelines for AI design – including from ISO, IEEE, NIST, the EU and CEN-CENELEC, the OECD, CoE and UNESCO – to the top-level interoperability framework developed in the report Advancing Accountability in AI: Governing and Managing risks through the lifecycle for trustworthy AI”. Additionally, the OECD.AI expert group on AI incidents is developing an interoperable framework for AI incident reporting.

 
0 People voted for this

Suggestion for updating OECD work on interoperability

OECD’s AI Principles, adopted in May 2019 as the first intergovernmental standard on AI – were designed as flexible, future-proof and values-based to facilitate interoperability on AI governance. With foundational principles such as human-centric values and fairness, transparency and explainability, robustness and safety, and accountability, they remain relevant and provide important guidance for the design, deployment and use of AI systems, and for governments in shaping their AI policies. Through the OECD.AI Network of Experts workstream on AI risk, the OECD is working on promoting interoperability of AI risk management frameworks by identifying common guideposts to assess AI risk and impact for Trustworthy AI. The goal is to help implement effective and accountable trustworthy AI systems by promoting global consistency through mapping existing and developing core standards, frameworks and guidelines for AI design – including from ISO, IEEE, NIST, the EU and CEN-CENELEC, the OECD, CoE and UNESCO – to the top-level interoperability framework developed in the report Advancing Accountability in AI: Governing and Managing risks through the lifecycle for trustworthy AI”. Additionally, the OECD.AI expert group on AI incidents is developing an interoperable framework for AI incident reporting.

 
0 People voted for this

Suggestion for section on context

Canada and Brazil both have proposed legislation to regulate AI. It might be helpful to group these countries with jurisdictions pursuing regulation (e.g. such as the EU), rather than the approaches unfolding in the US and UK (e.g. a more vertical sectoral approach).

0 People voted for this

Suggestion for standardisation sentence

Suggestion for "Standardization: The absence of universally accepted standards, principles and norms for interoperability in AI governance complicates efforts to create a cohesive framework."

There are existing standards from the OECD, UNESCO and others, so perhaps the issue is not so much with a lack of standards, but rather their implementation? 

The OECD's definition of an AI system is one standard that is now being baked into laws and standards e.g. NIST risk framework for AI, EU AI Act, AI incidents reporting frameworks etc. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user jamila_19985

Comments on 3. Interoperability of AI governance

Para 1
Add: While the Unesco Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence recognizes the need to go beyond values and principles when dealing with the potential and impacts of AI, there are several different approaches to its regulation.

Eliminate: Approaches to regulate AI take different forms, for example international treaties, multi-stakeholder
approaches, regulatory sandboxes, sectoral approaches, ethical guidelines, national legislation, private standards, technological solutions, open source collaborations, industry
self-regulation, and technological neutrality.
Justification: The list lacks reference and seems to mix a set of different things - from principles of tech policy to types of regulatory documents.

Para 4
Add: It is important to ackowldege that promoting interoperability doesn't mean creating creating unified frameworks or standardized norms for different countries and contexts. On the contrary, countries should be able to prioritize their policy needs when it comes to AI governance, counting on multistakeholder participation and readiness mechanisms. Also, geopolitical inequalities, including with regards to the development and deployment of AI, may require differential appraoches.

General comments: this intro should (i) explain why this was considered a relevant topic to be discussed (not clear to me); (ii) ackowldge the exporatory character of the work and the fact that definitions of interoperability abund and not necessarily converge and (iii) that there are different layers of interoperability to be addressed.
 
Para 6
Eliminate full paragraph
Justification: shorten the text, avoid generalizations and opinions without references

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user jamila_19985

Comments on 3.1. Existing policy measures

Para 1
Change: In this section, we provide examples of international policies that have addressed interoperability of AI governance.
For: In this section, we provide examples of international documents and recommendations that have addressed interoperability of AI.

Change: We then move on to describe interoperability policies and projects in the Global South to understand and demonstrate the commonalities and differences in technology development as well as AI governance capacity between the South-South and North-South.
For: We then move on to describe initiatives by some Global South and how they deal with this issue, in order to identify potential commonalities and differences.

Para 2
Eliminate: at different stages on their AI path
Justification: the idea that there is something as an unique AI path that must be followed by all nations to reach certain maturity level pre defined externaly (usually by Global North countries, as indicated in the begining of the report) contradicts the spirit of the Global South perspective.

Change: We recognize there are disparities between different regions and countries in terms of activities relevant to our topic, and we use the term “maturity level” to describe different stages of AI development and governance.
For: We recognize there are disparities between different regions and countries when it comes to AI development and deployment, and different institutional and normative frameworks in place which may result in different regulatory priorities and approaches. Also, as ackowledged by Unesco, despite strong regulatory action in some regions, the institutional shape and capacities of governments diverge significantly.

Eliminate/adapt footnote 35 which I suggest adding to the main text.

General comment: footnote 34 is missing.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user jamila_19985

Comment on the Latin American part

Latin America
The Latin American context related to AI governance and regulation is still fragmented and diverse, although regional discussions are widely in line with international developments and discussions on the matter. At the national level, several Latin American countries are in a second wave of development and discussions around AI regulation and governance. In previous years, progress was made in adopting or drafting AI strategies, mostly inspired by the OECD 2019 Principles [1]. A first wave included Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Uruguay, Mexico and Peru. Some of those strategies (for example Argentina, Chile, and Colombia), however, did not reach normative status and were dismissed after political changes. Currently, a number of countries are in the process for adopting AI regulation, following the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI. Cooperation mechanisms were established with a key participation from UNESCO and the CAF-Development Bank of Latin America to advance the implementation of the Recommendation with advances already in place as to the implementation of readiness assessments [2]. In October, 2023, the fist Latin American and Caribbean Ministerial and High Level Summit on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence will take place to "exchange and formulate proposals, from both a political and technical standpoint, regarding the ethical development of AI" in the region [3]. While Peru has already adopted a law to promote the use of AI, countries like Brazil and Chile are in the middle of Legislative on draft AI bills. Approaches vary from more comprehensive legislation, to sectoral regulation; and from human rights, risk or principle based initiatives to self-regulatory indications, with still no consensus around which will predominate.

At the same time, reaching common standards in underlying aspects of AI regulation, such as data protection and access to information, has been a challenge with national implementation being still varied. It is worth noting, however, that some advances were made within the Organization of American States (OAS), with the approval of a Regional Agenda for Digital Transformation approved in 2022 during the Summit of the Americas, with commitments to promote "transparency and accountability in the management, publication, and use of open data and digital technologies, including the responsible and ethical development and use of artificial intelligence systems and other transformative technologies, while protecting individual privacy and personal data and promoting equity and respect for human rights and inclusive growth" and "foster transparency and accountable use of algorithms that enable their auditing and technical evaluation, in a manner consistent with domestic legislation and international law" [4]. It also includes several commitments to the technical interoperability of information and digital systems used for the digitalization of State's services. In 2023, the OAS has resolved to "work on the continued development of an inter-American agenda regarding emerging technologies in the digital governments of the Americas, particularly in relation to the ethical use of artificial intelligence policies, algorithms, and data governance, providing advice, accompaniment, technical support, or management funds to the Member States" [5]. Discussions also occur within the Network of e-Government of Latin America and the Carribbean (Red Gealc), which has a specific working group on emerging technologies [6]. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has also made strong recommendations regarding the protection of human rights of persons with COVID19, stating that "When States develop or outsource to the private sector the development of an artificial intelligence system to address the pandemic, care must be taken to ensure that the technology hired, including the algorithms used, comply with non-discrimination principles, and an external and independent audit must be conducted of the impact that system might have on human rights" [7].

[1] https://ia.derechosdigitales.org/politicas-publicas/
[2] https://consulta-unesco-ram.com.br/
[3] https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/chile-will-host-first-latin-american…
[4] http://summit-americas.org/documentos_oficiales_ixsummit/CMBRS02292e02…
[5] https://scm.oas.org/doc_public/english/hist_23/ag08884e03.docx
[6] https://www.redgealc.org/lineas-de-trabajo/tecnologias-emergentes/
[7] https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/pdf/resolution-4-20-en.pdf

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user jamila_19985

Suggestion on 3.2

Change: Latin America, Africa and Caribbean countries.
For: Latin America and Caribbean countries.
Justification: African region should be treated in a separate section.

Change the full paragraph for the revised version below:
To assess the scenario of the interoperability of AI governance in Latin America, it is important to consider that the discussion on regulating AI is in its early stages. Influence from international advances, mainly of the Unesco Recommendations and the EU AI Act, may impact future regulation in the region; especially as some countries are receiving support to implement the Recommendations and several have had influence from European law in other contexts (e.g. data protection). The region could have a key role fostering global standards that guarantee AI follows human rights and ethical principles, since it is widely dependent of foreign technology. Regionally, as previously mentioned, there are advances still to be made within the OAS and the meeting of high-level authorities in Chile in October 2023, which could be the beginning of a regional initiative to determine the future of AI governance in the region and to foster further regional collaboration. High-level conversations, to the date, still lack wider civil society participation and multi-stakeholder perspectives, although the Latin American civil society has been active in generating evidence and recommendations to guide policy discussions regarding AI development and deployment, with key concerns being voiced regarding the human rights impacts they have particularly in historically marginalized groups.

0 People voted for this

CHAPTER 4: Framing AI Lifecycle for race and gender inclusion

[Pages 27 - 39 in the Draft report, please read the pdf draft report to see pictures and footnotes]

When AI systems were first created in the 1950s, the teams behind this innovation were predominantly composed of white men. More than seventy years later, this is still often the case. In this chapter, we address this and other gender-related issues relevant to AI as well as issues of race in the context of AI. When developed and deployed responsibly, AI systems have the potential of helping to improve gender and racial equality in our societies. AI systems biases can also reinforce or generate new ways to operationalize racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia in society and harm marginalized groups. Race and gender are interconnected and intersect in multiple ways. We address this intersectionality and its relevance in AI context in the third part of this chapter. Gender and race are      complex multifaceted concepts that encompass a wide range of identities and experiences. Gender, race, ethnical biases are often embedded in AI and data governance systems, which can lead to significant challenges for example for individuals who do not conform to traditional gender norms. The relationship between gender bias and AI should be better understood since AI technologies are too often seen as neutral.          

Understanding and identifying gender and race biases in AI and data governance is essential to mitigating their impact on individuals and society. Racial or gender biases in AI applications have caused harm  across sectors, for example in hiring, policing, judicial sentencing, and financial decision-making. We need to acknowledge biases and vulnerabilities that lead to gender biases and racial disparities experienced by people across industries and around the world. To address these biases, it is necessary to take an intersectional, transdisciplinary and multistakeholder approach to ethical AI and carefully consider questions of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, regionality and socioeconomic status.

Gender, race biases in AI and data governance can cause harm, but it is possible to address these issues and use AI to promote equity and inclusion.  Conscious, continued and ambitious action to debias AI systems is needed to guarantee basic human rights. Data governance can play a critical role in overcoming these challenges by promoting fairness, transparency, accountability, and ethical decision-making. By increasing our efforts to address gender and race biases in AI and data governance, we can create a more equitable and just society for all.

4.1 Race

The UN Human Rights Council has stated that “Technology is a product of society, its values, its priorities and even its inequities, including those related to racism and intolerance”. The next pages of this report focus on race issues in the context of AI. The general society has low understanding of racial discrimination. There is social pressure for historically marginalized people to be responsible alone for solving the problems that are consequence of discrimination. There is also a tendency to understand technologies and technologic fields developing them as neutral and objective. These three phenomena add up to the problems we face when we want to discuss AI and ethnic-racial discriminations.

AI systems learn and reproduce what humans have taught them. Therefore, if the person or data responsible for programming/training the system is intentionally or unintentionally racist, the system will have similar tendencies. Biases, defined as “outcomes which are systematically less favorable to individuals within a particular group and where there is no relevant difference between groups that justifies such harms”, are inherent to AI systems. The definition of race is based on an ideology and a historical social construct used to group people. This notion was created with the aim of hierarchizing different individuals, thus creating the relational idea that if some people are superior, others are consequently inferior. Oftentimes, race divides human beings into groups based on their physical appearances, social factors, cultural backgrounds, and descent. As a social construct, race is often used by dominant groups in society to continue establishing a system of power over other categories., which is a factor that leads to racial inequalities. UN’s International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defines racial discrimination as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” There remains much to be done in pursuing equity and respect for people regardless of how their bodies are read and racially classified.

Humans do not receive enough quality and full-spectrum training, this means there is not enough attention paid to gender, racial and ethnic biases AI systems can develop. Most of the AI developers belong to historically privileged groups. Therefore, the persons targeted by the racial biases rarely present when AI systems are developed. This can eventually be used to their disadvantage. Including marginalized people in the development and creation processes can help underline problematic aspects that could lead to a wider full spectrum inclusion of AI systems.  It is clear that we need for example more women, gender-diverse individuals, and Black people working in the development of AI. A diverse team can bring different perspectives and experiences to the table, which can help identify biases and create more comprehensive solutions. 

Moreover, another factor leading to racial discrimination is that the AI systems we have nowadays are mostly based on how they were created years ago. Therefore, if a system created in the 1970s is based on stereotypes and certain power balances and racial inequities of that time, this is still the foundation of a system in use today. Indeed, “the problem is not surveillance technology itself, but the ways technology is deployed to reinforce pre-existing power disparities”. Ideally, building blocks of such AI systems should be broken to down completely and created anew. However, this is not a feasible solution, since starting from scratch with AI systems would delay technical development. Instead, we need to focus on changing the biases that the AI systems have developed and learned from humans over the years. This would mean teaching the AI systems differently. This needs to be done rapidly, before the system understands certain biases as permanent, which would be detrimental to many persons belonging to racial and ethnic minorities.

Algorithmic racism is defined by Milner and Traub as “the use of Big Data in ways that, intentionally or not, reproduce and spread racial disparities, shifting power and control away from Black and brown people and communities”. This type of racism appears in many different areas of life, may it be facial recognition, medical examinations or more basic tasks such as washing our hands, where for instance some automatic faucets do not recognize certain skin tones. This underlines the daily impact that AI systems have on people’s lives. AI systems help spread stereotypes in society by, for instance, identifying people of color as janitors or criminals, this reinforces acts of discrimination and racism. AI should represent development and innovation; it shouldn’t bring us back to a society where minorities are excluded and repressed.

CASE: Facial recognition

Facial recognition is an instrument that has become more ubiquitous, may it be on our personal phones, but also in security mechanisms. A facial recognition software at the MIT in the USA was incapable of recognizing the faces of Black students, who were forced to wear white masks on their faces in order to gain access to different areas. The team creating the software was composed of white men. They were no tests run on different skin colors to ensure that the system worked on all persons.

 A number of studies have underlined that AI systems are less capable of generating and recognizing faces of Black people. For example, when AI systems are asked to recognize the gender of a face, they have an error rate of 35% for Black women, compared to an error rate of only 1% when it comes to white men. This is an enormous gap. It can be explained by the fact that AI systems have not been created with the understanding of nuances of Black people’s features. Many AI systems are based on stereotypical views of minorities, since the systems have not been trained well enough. As a concrete example, systems sold by Microsoft and Amazon did not recognize iconic people, such as Michelle Obama and Serena Williams, correctly. Facial and biometric recognition play an important role in police forces, notably in China and the USA. In China, the Uighur ethnic minority was forced to be biometrically recognized in order to be tracked and identified. This led to a restriction in their movements and activities, which goes against equality and non-discrimination rights, therefore violating a number of human rights. In the USA, police agents are equipped with body cameras. Facial recognition softwares in the cameras are trained with a database of pictures including mugshot photos, in which Black people are overrepresented. This leads to a disproportionality in their representation, which in run could translate to more arrests of Black people.  Amazon, one of the big companies involved in creating facial recognition softwares, has shifted the blame to the people who created these databases instead of addressing the racial bias in their products.

AI systems have proven to be less effective in precisely recognizing the face of Black people many times. Such systems can be highly dangerous and discriminate against certain groups. Robert Williams, was wrongfully arrested after a facial recognition software identified him as the thief in a burglary. It was then proved that it was not him and the software had been mistaken.

AI is used to spread racist speech and incitement to discrimination, as well as violence targeted at certain groups. Social media platforms have been criticized for not being able to recognize instances of racism and letting them proliferate. But is the issue really companies and developers not being able to identify such instances, or simply that they are not motivated to recognize racism in their platforms? Identifying racist hate online requires resources that are most likely put in tasks that are considered more important in the company’s view. Examples of racist speech on Facebook include white supremacist groups rallying and coordinating their actions on the platform. Meta’s Chief Executive Officer admitted that the platform’s AI systems were unable to detect problematic hate speech in certain contexts, such as this one. It is problematic that the creators have not noted the problems or taken them into account when creating the platform. A 2021 update stated that Meta’s AI systems are responsible for detecting 97% of hate speech on Facebook, which is an improvement compared to previous years.  This lack of change has caused a number of Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) users to quit the platform, which has had a direct economic impact on Meta. Perhaps if companies lose profits, they might take action  to tackle racist speech and incitement to discrimination in their platforms.

There is an array of existing policy measures to tackle racism in AI. The United Nations’ International Convention on the elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states that States shall prevent racial discrimination, take effective measures where laws and policies have a discriminatory effect and conduct analyses and research to understand the causes and potential solutions to the issue of racism. However, many countries fail to collect data that could help reveal the disparate impacts of emerging technologies. Implementing more research projects and increasing funding could be a step closer to objective and complete analyses on the racial problem with regard to AI.

A number of policy groups and associations are combatting algorithmic racism and hate speech. The Algorithmic Justice League was created by Dr Joy Buolamwini (the same woman who faced difficulties with MIT’s facial recognition system) to raise awareness about impacts of AI on minorities, to open dialogues with researchers and policymakers, and to give a voice to the victims of AI. As stated by the AJL, “we want the world to remember that who codes matters, how we code matters, and that we can code a better future”.

 Although there are many negative examples of how companies are not addressing racial discrimination and biases in their AI systems, some have owned up to their mistakes and changed their way of doing. This is the case of X, (formerly known as Twitter) that removed a photo-cropping feature they had introduced on their platform, which did not recognize Black faces correctly. Twitter admitted that there was a racial bias, and therefore discrimination, which led to eliminating the feature.

In terms of race, highlighting the lack of F.A.T.E (fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics) is another approach that addresses the detection of biases more obliquely, with accountability measures designed to identify discrimination in the processing of personal data. Numerous organizations and companies as well as several researchers propose such accountability. Therefore, having the difficulties of foreseeing AI technologies outcomes as well as reverse-engineering algorithmic decisions, no single measure can be completely effective in avoiding perverse effects. Thus, where algorithmic decisions are consequential, it makes sense to combine measures that should be taken to work together. Advance measures such as F.A.T.E., combined with the retrospective checks of audits and human review of decisions, could help identify and address unfair results. A combination of these measures can complement each other and add up to more than the sum of the parts. This also would strengthen existing remedies for actionable discrimination by providing documentary evidence that could be used in litigation, creating new laws and policies, and frameworks, and developing a deeper understanding of the social implication of the different AI technologies and how we could use those results to improve them or not longer use them. Nevertheless, we need to hold companies that develop AI systems accountable for them to take appropriate measures. Without some kind of economic constraint, companies will not allocate resources and time to make the needed changes in their AI systems.

4.2 Gender

AI can be a powerful tool for women, girls and gender diverse people’s empowerment. At the same time, AI can also hinder the progress towards equality if issues including representation, bias, and discrimination issues are not adequately addressed. We find that the increased development and use of AI systems, including generative AI, has magnified already existing obstacles for reaching global gender equality goals.

According to the World Health Organization, gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls, boys, and others that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviors, and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl, boy, or diverse expressions and identities, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time. Gender is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males, and intersex persons. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal, and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.

Gender biases in AI and data governance have become a concerning issue in recent years. These biases can arise in various stages, from data collection to algorithm design and decision-making. The biases can be unintentional and reflect existing societal norms and stereotypes. Women and gender-diverse people globally face unique challenges, which lead to underrepresentation and misrepresentation of certain groups in AI development. The biases can also stem from how data is collected, stored, and processed. Gender biases in AI and data governance can have negative consequences, such as discrimination and unfair treatment. Data governance needs to be adequate to promote gender equality. Despite balanced datasets, gender biases still exist in AI technologies. Algorithms being used need to be constantly checked for potential biases related to gender.

Studies suggest that AI can help reduce gender bias in decision-making by eliminating or minimizing the influence of biased information in the decision-making process. For instance, AI systems can be designed to exclude irrelevant information from the decision, such as a person's gender, race, or other characteristics that might introduce bias. Additionally, AI can be employed to analyze large datasets and detect patterns of bias, enabling decision-makers to take measures to mitigate the impact of bias. AI is already harnessed to reduce or mitigate inequalities. Examples that deserve to be celebrated include an initiative of Women’s World Banking and Mujer Financierathat uses machine learning to champion financial inclusion for women in Latin America and to supports women in managing their personal finances.

Absence of AI regulations in many parts of the world, the low transparency regarding AI use in different social contexts, as AI’s impact on underrepresented social groups, such as women, can raise concerns. These concerns are not limited to deepening existing inequalities, but we are concerned that AI can also create new inequalities. It is clear that we need to address harmful practices in the application and development of AI. Attention needs to be paid also in situations where, AI-powered solutions help achieving notable positive results, but there still remains a need to improve the impact on historically marginalized groups, including women. A recent case and example of using automation to handle large volumes of data took place in Brazil during the Covid-19 pandemic. “Emergency Aid” is a case that sheds light on how automated processes can be a powerful tool for processing large volumes of information and making rapid decisions. The case also underscores the importance of continually improving these systems to ensure that they are fair, transparent, and capable.

Case: Automated Emergency Aid program in Brazil

Women were among those most negatively affected by the pandemic, and the Brazilian Government created an Emergency Aid program with a special focus on women. The goal of the program was alleviating the economic and social effects of the pandemic, and allowing the most vulnerable part of the population to maintain access to consumer goods, especially food. People applied for the Aid remotely through a mobile application developed by the government. To register, they were asked to provide personal information including full name, date of birth, CPF personal credit number, family composition, work conditions, and income. The algorithm made the decision to grant or deny of the benefit automatically without human involvement. Beneficiaries were selected through cross-referencing data from citizens registered in CadÚnico (Brazil's system for social program registration), and the public that registered through the app, with the program's eligibility criteria.

People trying to access and use Emergency Aid through the app faced difficulties. The created algorithm could not handle recent changes in income and personal situations, as the databases it had access to were not consistent with the current situation of the people. This resulted in a significant portion of people who needed assistance not receiving the aid. Due to the lack of administrative ways to review the automated decision, the judicial system was the primary means of contestation and requesting human analysis for granting the benefit. This created a new problem due to the limitations of the State in offering legal assistance to the most vulnerable population. But despite all the limitations and access problems, the automated system made it possible for the benefit to reach a significant portion of the Brazilian population rapidly. Research suggests that (at least in relation to the initial rounds of Emergency Aid) the benefit had a positive impact on the income levels of Brazilians facing situations of great vulnerability. This would not have been feasible for humans at that moment.

Although AI has evolved significantly in recent years, women around the world still have less access to education and training for digital technologies and AI specially. They are still underrepresented in AI research and development and in the boardrooms of the most influential AI companies. Recent studies have found that only 18% of authors at leading AI conferences are women, and more than 80% of AI professors are men. This disparity is extreme in the AI industry, for example at Facebook and Google women comprise only 15% and 10% of AI research staff in the companies. In 2019, women represented only 18% of C-suite leaders in AI companies and top start-ups globally. Women’s participation in key decision-making on AI is limited.

AI can also perpetuate and amplify existing biases if not designed and used carefully. For example, if AI systems are trained on historically biased data, they may make decisions that discriminate against certain groups.  Additionally, when the data used to train the AI system contains biases, such as historical discrimination against certain groups, the AI system may perpetuate and amplify these biases. It is important for developers of AI systems to be aware of these potential biases and take steps to mitigate them.   Additionally, we find it is important for companies, governments, civil society organizations, and multi-stakeholder initiatives to work together towards a more comprehensive view of AI fairness. We need to increase collaboration between scholars from the worlds of technology, gender studies, and public policy to develop a shared language to assess and strengthen inclusion of women and gender diversity in all stages of AI lifecycle. 

Finally, we need to acknowledge that while AI systems can potentially correct discrimination, the realization of this potential requires awareness, transparency, and oversight. It is essential to acknowledge that pre-existing biases can affect the development and implementation of AI and data governance systems, as biased social norms and practices can introduce biases into Machine Learning (ML) systems through data.

Many Governments are currently developing legislation to put in place mandatory artificial intelligence audits, which need to integrate a gender perspective. The development of voluntary ethical frameworks is another way to guide the behaviors and actions in developing and using AI. Most frameworks have no safeguards which can undermine their application and oversight. Self-governance systems put in place by companies have been underpowered, including many internal human rights or ethical AI teams and bodies. Many companies continue to ignore harms their AI-powered products and services cause, or they are underinvesting in efforts to address them.

4.3 Exploring the Intersectionality of Gender and Race in AI

Intersectionality refers to the overlapping and interconnected nature of social identities, such as race and gender, and how they can lead to unique experiences of discrimination and bias.  Intersectionality is a critical framework for improving fairness in AI by addressing the intersection of oppression, such as racism and sexism. The interconnected nature of social categories such as race, gender, and how they relate to systems of oppression and privilege, are at the heart of the notion of intersectionality. However, the exclusive focus on identity categories in AI may divert attention from structural oppression that causes unfairness between subgroups. For instance, black women are oppressed because of the intersecting structure of racism and sexism, not just because they have intersecting identities of "black" and "women".

Ethical AI requires taking an intersectional approach when addressing questions around gender, race, and ethnicity. One area of concern is the intersectional discrimination faced by women, and gender-diverse people of color in the field of AI. For instance, AI algorithms exhibit bias when they perform better on recognizing men than women, and people with lighter skin tones than people with darker skin tones. There is an intersection of gender and race discrimination which results in lower accuracy recognizing women and gender diverse people with darker skin tones. These discrepancies are problematic because they may lead to misidentification or bias against certain groups of people. Therefore, intersectionality is a critical framework to measure fairness, and AI algorithms are considered fair if probabilities of outcomes are the same or similar across different combinations of attributes such as gender and race.

Considering intersectionality in the AI lifecycle processes helps ensure that AI systems are fair and just for all people. One strategy for improving diversity is to ensure a diverse group of individuals is involved in the entire AI lifecycle, from data collection to algorithm design to implementation. This includes people from various disciplines, cultures, genders, and backgrounds, as well as individuals with disabilities. Another strategy is to use inclusive design practices to ensure that AI systems are accessible to all individuals, regardless of their abilities or background. This approach involves end-users throughout the development process to ensure that the system is designed to be inclusive from the start.

4.4 Recommendations on AI and gender/race

In conclusion, policy measures are still rather sparse, and we need to accelerate the progress in the fields of racial and gender discrimination in AI systems. Some feel that is that it is too late to solve the issues of gender and race, as they are too embedded in the AI systems. Changing the course is still possible, we just need to increase our efforts in erasing stereotypical views, diversifying teams working in AI and much more.

It will be hard to achieve an unbiased AI, but multistakeholder approach could offer a holistic way to understand, embody, and code the experiences of women, gender diverse, minorities, BIPOC into AI and other data-driven new technologies. Global cooperation and multistakeholder dialogue are vital in ensuring AI is a force for good also in the context of gender and race. We need to mitigate potential risks, and design paths that prioritize the well-being and security of historically marginalized groups and society at large in the age of AI.

Based on our work and discussions, here are our key statements and recommendations:

  • We need to have clear policies and regulations in place that promote diversity and inclusion in AI. These policies should mandate that diversity and inclusion are taken into account during every stage of the process, and should encourage F.A.T.E. We need to promote obligatory human rights assessments of potentially risky AI applications.
  • It is vital to include mainstream gender in national AI policies. We need to include time-bound gender-specific targets, allocation of resources, increased coherence to remove the multidimensional and discriminatory barriers faced by women, girls; and gender diverse people.
  • We need to integrate a gender-responsive approach into the development, review and implementation of laws, policies and programs relevant for the digital age to combat new risks, gender stereotypes and bias in the fields of artificial intelligence, predictive algorithms and robotics.
  • AI systems should be regularly audited to detect any biases that may have slipped through the cracks, and to ensure that they are functioning fairly and equitably.
  • Any AI framework that aspires to be fair, accountable, transparent, and ethical must incorporate theories, perspectives from marginalized and underrepresented communities into all stages of AI lifecycle. 
  • We need to fund, support, and empower grassroots work and advocacy to foster inclusive dialogues on if and how gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity and other aspects of identity should be used in datasets and AI systems. Civil society and advocacy groups play an important role in uniting the voices of minorities to be heard by companies and institutions still promoting algorithmic racial discrimination.
  • Governments should be obligated to conduct impact assessments and collect data on racial discrimination in AI. A voluntary approach is not sufficient.
  • Meaningful inclusion and representation of impacted communities’ representatives needs to be ensured in corporate committees. This also includes committees of national authorities or oversight bodies elected by a community or sector. Diversity and inclusion are cornerstones for developing safe and reliable AI.
  • We need to step up our efforts in ensuring diversity, quality, and accuracy when building and curating datasets.
  • It is vital to provide transparency, explainability, and accountability mechanisms for the whole AI lifecycle. This is especially important in the context of automated decision-making that could lead to discriminatory outcomes and harmful impacts on the fundamental and human rights of individuals.

By implementing these actions we take one step closer to ensuring that AI systems are building a society that is fair, equitable, and accessible to all individuals.

 

 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

CHAPTER 5: AI and environment

[Pages 40 - 47 in the Draft report, please read the pdf draft report to see pictures and footnotes]

The convergence of AI,. data, and environmental concern forms a dynamic nexus that holds immense promise for addressing pressing global challenges. Frontier technological capabilities can be leveraged to conserve and protect the environment — ultimately supporting a just green-digital transition, that fosters shared prosperity for people and the planet.

However, accelerated digital transformation (DX) creates both challenges and opportunities for the global green agenda. Digital solutions create new data-driven innovations for the common good. At the same time, accelerated DX can harm the environment. The disproportional global effects of climate change have led to increasing calls for a “just green transition”. This refers to transitioning to a environmentally sustainable and climate-friendly economy that benefits all members of society.  Intensifying datafication of societies, DX and the green transition are increasingly intertwined processes. We observe high levels of optimism that AI can be harnessed to accelerate progress towards a greener and more sustainable future, ultimately mitigating the global polycrises.

However, most of the hype on green-digital transition is mainly from countries in the Global North (GN), which (based on previous industrial revolutions)are better positioned to leverage positive impacts of technological disruptions. These countries typically have relatively higher capabilities to combine the potential of accelerated DX with AI.  Many GN countries have the awareness and needed resources and prerequisites to optimize and implement data-innovations that in turn improve mitigation, adaptation, and monitoring of the triple planetary crises,. This GN techno-optimism often fails to capture the complexities of data-innovation ecosystems of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), most which are based in the Global South (GS). These countries are plagued by persistent and multidimensional structural inequities, including an AI divide which will most likely hinder these countries’ efforts towards successful twin transition.

Advances in AI, including the recent leaps made in generative AI, show significant for environmental conservation. One notable example is the use of generative models, such as Generative Adversarial Networks and Variational Autoencoders, for generating synthetic data. Such data can aid in environmental research and conservation efforts. Paradoxically, models  such as ChatGPT, Hugging Face, and Google Bard, demand significant computing power. Enormous amounts of energy are needed to train and support user queries, ultimately resulting in increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and societal harms

Natural resource consumption of AI compute infrastructure is a critical aspect to consider as AI technologies become more prevalent and powerful. Other challenges connected to increased development and uptake of AI systems include ecological disruptions and human rights violations associated with the mineral value chains that supply the increased demand for hardware devices that bridge the gap between offline and online worlds.

Without robust data governance, AI can amplify or create intersectional inequities, particularly for the GS. Robust data governance (RDG) plays a pivotal role in shaping how environmental data is collected, stored, shared, and used for a wide range of applications such as advancing digital twin enabled innovation, informing climate-related policies, and scenario forecasting .  The responsible management of data is vital if we want to ensure that AI technologies are harnessed for the betterment of the environment.  We need to ensure transparency, accountability, security, privacy, and foster data-innovations that support the social contract for data .

RDG can also play a significant role in mitigating the environmental impact of AI. RDG is crucial for collecting high-value data that is needed to assess the environmental impact of AI . However, collecting data that aligns to the principles of data justice  is difficult because AI technologies and applications develop constantly, and many data ecosystems in the GS are inefficient. Collaboration among different stakeholders is essential to address these environmental concerns effectively.

GS countries are often characterized by diverse ecosystems, rich biodiversity, and unique environmental challenges. But GS is often not included as a critical player in the development of “consensus based” technical standards, norms, and regulation on the triple planetary crises , and increasingly for global AI governance . For example, we know that open free, global, interoperable, reliable, and secure internet is a prerequisite for data free flow with trust, that supports innovations such as AI  and strengthens respect for democratic values. Still, LMIC’s are late internet adopters and not able to reap the benefits.

GS grapples with more environmental vulnerabilities and would benefit from innovative solutions facilitated by the digital revolution. We need to highlight the intersection of AI, data governance, and the environment for devising effective strategies that cater to local needs and challenges. Meaningful global cooperation for data  and the environment is needed to address these multidimensional and interdependent challenges. We need to ensure AI’s net environmental impact is positive for the GS.

Our report’s focus lies on the Global South, but it is worthwhile to draw ideas from new initiatives on data governance being formulated in the EU. We need to discuss which elements could be adapted to formulate broader data governance framework(s) that can benefit the GS.

The purpose of this chapter is to dive in this interplay of AI, data governance, and the environment. We  will present two case studies that demonstrate the importance of robust data governance (RDG) and responsible AI deployment in: (i) Food security and community resilience; and (ii) Climate disaster management.  The following pages are a result of an iterative process that included open multi-stakeholder dialogue, collaborations and feedback from diverse experts.

5.1 Case Studies

This chapter goes beyond mere analysis; it aspires to provide practical insights and recommendations on the technological environmental societal and governance (TESG) challenges related to climate change and digitalisation. The selected cases illustrate the power of effective responsible AI governance.  

5.1.1 Case Study 1: Data Governance and AI for Food Security and Community Resilience

Food security analysis and forecasting: A machine learning case study in southern Malawi.

The case study reveals that AI holds a significant role in the transformation of food systems and in combatting food and nutrition insecurity. Within the agricultural sector, AI can contribute in various ways. It can optimize or even automating certain human tasks like planting and harvesting, and make utilization of natural resources more efficient.

However, when harnessing AI capabilities to increase food security, policy coherence and systems thinking should be used to reap potentials and mitigate risks. For example, small and medium-sized agricultural production units would need to make significant complementary investments, for instance in specialized infrastructure for collecting and transferring data. This means that beyond robust data governance, complimentary infrastructure policies and skills upgrading are crucial to support small holder farmers and stakeholders’ digital capabilities and access to frontier technologies.

In the GS, there must be concerted efforts to ensure that formulating data governance frameworks for AI, and in particular for AI deployment aiming at increased food security in the face of climate change, important consideration is the affordability and accessibility of the data infrastructure and the information technology network, whereas this would imply ensuring availability of large data sets with high variability and high quality for GS contexts, and provided these data are findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR). 

Ideally, AI-enabled precision farming contributes to food security via improving yields while conserving valuable resources, such as water. The goal is to optimize amounts of fertilizer and herbicide based on level of soil nutrients, expected temperatures and wind speeds across farmland, establish ideal depths to plant seeds or required irrigation given a particular soil moisture, and handle different crops and adjust practices towards keeping carbon sequestered in the soil. Hence, data and AI are supposed to optimize harvests and minimize the input of resources, including water and fertilizer. This can only be achieved in the GS, if high-quality local data is available for analysis. It is fundamental that the creation of data ecosystems is done in an inclusive manner, set to solidify community resilience.

However, it is also fundamental to avoid that precision farming unevenly contributes to the expansion of monoculture farming practices leaving small-scale farms behind upon which multiple communities in the GS rely on, and to avoid generating new dependencies where farmers are locked into unfavourable commercial relationships with technology and services providing firms.

5.1.2 Case Study 2: Data Governance and AI for Climate Disaster Management

Sagar Vani is an intelligent AI app by the Indian government that has released mobile applications of and India Quake to spread information about earthquakes and other natural catastrophes. The two key mobile applications "India Quake" and "Sagar Vani" are intended to handle seismic events and marine safety, respectively. These applications are one of India's pr