IGF 2018 – Day 1 – Salle XI

at the moment she’s dealing with
an issue at registration and will
be with us just as soon as she can. I’d like to make, or was asked
to make a couple of comments on this year’s program overall. Focused probably more on how I
it has developed and some of the
pieces of it so you get an insight into the IGF and I think Anja
has comments on the activities in the eco she will talk to and
we’re joined by the head of the IGF
secretariat and open for questions. This is facilitating
your participating and making sure
you understand the DNA of the Internet Governance Forum. So with that, I’m the chair of
the multistakeholder advisory group. Both the chair and the members
of the advisory group are appointed by the UN
Secretary-General. The advisory group is made up between 50 and 55 members.
About 40% of them come from governments and they are chosen
through the regional process that’s active within the United
Nations. The other 60% are split equally, so roughly 20% for each
one of the other three stakeholder communities, civil
society, private sector and a community that you don’t see all
that often but has been in the IGF community since the earliest
days and that’s called the technical community
That’s comprised of organization that is have management role
over key pieces of the core Internet
structure. They’re very active in
policy setting globally. The Internet corporation, ICANN,
. The Internet Society with all of
their activities and policy in developing access activities and
then the five regional Internet areas responsible . Those are the four categories
that make up the advisory group. The last three that I just
mentioned, we want newcomers to participate fully not only in
the meeting but also in the activities of the IGF, the
appointment processes for those three
other bodies, again, civil society, private sector and the technical community are
determined by processes run by those
communities. They all have their own
processes for soliciting expressions of interest, for
making nominations to the Secretary-General’s office for
the appointment is made. It’s region, subregion, country,
gender as well as the stake holder
group so it’s quite an exercise. That is the group responsible for the program of the IGF. The IGF and a community-led,
bottom up process. So in that vein,
slightly different from past years, this year we continue to evolve the process as we move
forward, the MAG, multistakeholder advisory group, had a call for
issues, short call for issues. I
think it was a 200-word limit where we asked the community to
say tell us where the issues you
would like to see the IGF addressing
this year. We had I want to say 300
responses but honestly that could be
quite right. It could be That process ran back in March
and April time frame. Once we had those responses in
they were categorized according to
tags and themes and that led to a more detailed call for
workshop proposals for this IGF . There were roughly – I wish I remember
these numbers. Here comes Anja. I will leave
the numbers for a moment. 400, I thought it was close to
six. So Mary Aduma said there’s over 400 proposals but
we are looking for Anja to confirm
the number of workshop proposals.
In any case, it’s a relatively high number of proposals for a
small number of slots as you can imagine at any IGF.
This IGF is a little abbreviated. Normally we’ve had four-day IGF
with a day zero where a number of community groups meet and then
we roll into a four-day IGF. There’s a rather interesting set
of events happening this week in
Paris. This year the IGF is three
days. So we had roughly a little over
90 workshop sessions that came through that multistakeholder
advisory group proposal and about another 70 or so that are
comprised of other IGF ecosystem activities such as open forums
which facilitate participation from
intergovernmental organizations. We have a number of sessions
from a couple of other IGF ecosystem activities such as dynamic
coalitions, which are bottom up, community-led groups of people
who are interested in a topic who work largely virtually but
also meet at the IGF and have
presentations at the IGF on anything from
Internet of Things to accessibility, economic and
trade issues. There are 17 of them this year.
We also had four best practice forums. Again, we solicit input
from the community and from the MAG members on what are the best
practice forums they think will be of most interest and the MAG
selects those, again on the basis of expressions of
community interest. We had four this
year, one on local content, one on gender and access, one on cyber
security and one on artificial intelligence, Internet of Things
and data. Then finally, we’ve had a major
intercessional policy initiative.
This is its fourth year. It’s called Connecting and
Enabling the Next Billions. All of these
activities are open to the community.
It’s literally just sign up for the mailing list and the
sessions and participate. If you want to sit on a list and
get familiar with the topics and things that’s great as well.
Again, we do everything we can to be
as inclusive as possible. So the meetings are open, there
are meeting summaries. The MAG meetings themselves are
both transcribed and streamed and all
of that is up on the website and,
of course, there are meeting summaries as well.
We have another very, very important part of our activities
which are called national regional IGF activities that I will let Anja
talk to because she’s the focal point for those initiatives
within the secretariat. In fact the first NRI preceded the first
IGF. They’ve grown tremendously since that period
of time. Nearly doubling in the last three years and right now
we’re at a little over 110 recognized national regional IGF
initiatives. So I’m going to tell Anja a bit about what we’ve
done and ask her to talk about the NRIs as they’re important
and a way for us to advance what’s
important to us individually and important to the countries and
regions we live in as well. I did a general IGF MAG. Anja can talk about the IGF
villages as well.
The secretariat is actually funded from something called an
IGF trust fund. It’s voluntary
donations because the IGF is an extra
budgetary project. These meetings are actually
hosted and funded by a government. So the French
Government is our host here this year for this IGF. They pay for
the facilities , the translation,
our interpretation, etc, and we’re very grateful to them and
all the other host countries that
have supported the IGF in the past.
I think they’re the key points f you can talk about the IGF village and if we can come back
to the title. >> ANJA: I would like to
apologize for being a bit late. The
secretariat is a small team and I would like to thank Lyn, the
chair for starting this session. Thank you very much for coming
this early and we’re very happy to
have you all here. I will very quickly say a few words about
who are the national regional IGFs,
or the NRIs in short. What do they do and how can you meet
them if you’re interested. After
that I will quickly refer about very important segment of this
meeting which I think gives this vibrant tone to the IGF which is
the IGF village that I think you can see on the floor that’s just
above us. The national regional IGFs were
not mandated by the agenda that is
given in the mandates to the IGF. They exist in the world
and currently there are 111
countries and regions that are organizing their national regional IGF
processes. A couple of years ago we
spontaneously started meeting at these IGF meetings primarily but also
in some of the regional IGFs, some meetings where IGF is present
like ICANN and we realized we were
all pursuing the same objectives and same goal. Given the fact
how challenging it is to come up with a comprehensive agenda on
the Internet public policy it’s just common sense that we should
work together. So we started working together
as a network that was just three years ago relatively small,
around 40 countries and regions were
present. And in three years we faced this
rapid growth that today, as I said, we are having
pleasure to work with more than 111 countries and regions and
discuss what are the issues
pertaining to the Internet governance and from their
respective communities. How we can learn
from each other and improve each other. The NGIs and IGF have
collaborate relationship. They’re
autonomous. They’re not a stakeholder, they’re bottom-up,
their processes are open, inclusive,
transparent and noncommercial. As a network we try to
facilitate monthly virtual meetings
throughout the year, set up a joint agenda, joint objectives
that we tried to achieve by the
upcoming annual IGF meeting and present
those outcomes at that annual meeting. So this year is no
exception there. We’re very fortunate, as the
NRI’s network, NRI is the focal point
from the secretariat that supports the work of the
network, that the MAG agreed to give the main
session to the NRIs to organize a
very important topic. It’s called the Evolution of
Internet Governance.
That session will happen tomorrow in room 1 and let me
just check, yes, it’s from 11:30 until
12:50. The session will feature, I believe, more than 40NRIs that
will be present on site. It will be moderated by Ambassador
Fonseca, and I will be in a supporting
role. So hopefully in 80 minutes we
will see what are the challenges globally when it comes about the implementation of the
multistakeholder principle to the IGF processes.
That session will be followed by a very important work meeting
that I hope the majority of you will join. It’s an open work
meeting between all the NRIs that are present at the IGF.
Many of them will be present online
between the chair of the MAG, interested members of the MAG,
between the IGF secretariat and
colleagues from the Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The purpose of that meeting will
be to see how can we help each other, how can we as a global
community support these valuable processes that exist on a level
of a country and region. If you would like to learn more
about the NRIs, maybe meet with me, meet with some of the NRIs,
you can do so. We do have a joint
booth at the IGF village and please stop by and we can chat
and show you what was done in
previous years. The network really did
some excellent work and produced some very concrete outputs from
their work. Finally, about the IGF village,
what I said that I will say a few
words. So the IGF village, as you know, is located on the
first floor, so basically the ground
floor where you enter. It consists
of 56 individual boards. That means that 56 organizations
from all over the world decided to
present their work at the IGF. They
are all noncommercial and they’re presenting their
missions and their objectives and how they
fit in within this IGF global ecosystem.
So please, if you could tour the village, I think it would be
also very valuable for you to engage
with these individual organizations and ask directly
the focal points present there how can you maybe establish certain
partnerships, how can you work together, learn about their work
and so on. That would be
I will ask Lyn to take the floor again. >> LYN: I will open the floor
for questions but Anja reminded me, the mandate for the IGF comes
from the World Summit Information
Society Process. It was a two-phase full-fledged
United Nations summit 2003 in Geneva, 2005 in
Tunisia and the Tunis agenda lays out the framework for the
Internet Governance Forum. That’s
actually what drives kind of the principles and processes, about
exclusivity. As I said earlier, some of the
unique things about the IGF is all
stakeholders, all participants participate with an equal voice
and equal place within the process
here. If you go to a number of other
United Nations or governmental meetings, quite often there’s a
segment or a time for governments
to speak and then the other stakeholders or it’s a
consultation as oppose to do an equal dialog. The IGF really strives to make
this an equal dialog across all
stakeholders. There are some protocols we need
to observe from time to time and we will see that this afternoon
where we’re very fortunate to have, for the first time ever,
United Nations Secretary-General
Guterres will be here to address us and also for the first time
ever – no, that’s not exactly true. President Macron is here
as well. But last year we had the
President from Switzerland as well. So we’re very fortunate to have
those two individuals. Yes. And
Rio as well we had the president. If you have more questions and
the IGF mandate. There’s a lot of information on the website.
There’s a code of conduct as you participate in the IGF, there’s
the terms of reference for the multistakeholder advisory group
and we’re encouraging everybody to
get involved. We’re also looking
for new participants. We typically serve three
one-year terms so a third of the MAG
turns over every year. That’s roughly seven or eight positions open up every year. We have some MAG members in the
room /PW-P /*. See if there are
any questions from the newcomers in the room. Say who you are and
your background. Renata. >> RENATA: Hi, I’m from Brazil,
a MAG member and Mary Aduma is
helping me assist all newcomers. If you have any questions or anywhere you want to know about it IGF
find us. And there will be others of us and there are the
knowledge cafes which are spaces that are really for you to come
and decompress and ask questions and meet other MAG members. Present your projects.
So keep a look at the knowledge cafe sessions. They are at lunchtime, mostly they do not
compete with any other activity. So you can come, bring your
sandwich, decompress, and, yeah.>> LYN: Those are excellent points and thank you for
introducing yourself and Mary. Any comments, questions? Mary?
>>AUDIENCE: Good morning, everyone. I’m Mary. When I was
a first timer, first comer in IGF
I got lost because there were so many workshops, so many open
forums, so many of them so you would
find out that there are some that you want to attend, they
conflict. But I will advise that you draw
your own timetable and make sure you follow it or else
you get more confused. So make sure you know the room where the
meeting is going to be held and
what you’re interested in. Don’t go to every track, pick a
track or session or your particular interest. If you’re
interested in new technologies, follow them. If you’re interested in human
rights, gender or evolution of Internet
governance, or media or digital inclusion.
So anyone that you’re interested in, check through the schedule and follow it because if you
don’t focus, you get lost. Thank
you. >> LYN: That’s a very good
point, Mary. There are eight tracks this year and the tracks in both
the sessions within those tracks represent the kind of
expressions of interest and percentage of
interest across the community. So again, that’s why engagement
is so important, both in things
like the call for issues in your local activities, in the
workshop submission process because we really depend on the community
to both identify and then, of course, support the particular
topics that are of interest. We’ve also, with virtually all
the sessions, all the workshop organizers were instructed to
make them as interactive as possible
and the guideline was that 50% of any session should be for
engagement and dialog between the community and panelists or organizers, trying to kind of
break down that barrier. Again, we really do want to hear
from everybody and are looking for engagement. There’s also, we introduced some
additional kind of reporting within the framework of the
workshop here today to help facilitate
kind of key messages coming out on a daily basis but we’ve also
asked for each one of the session organizers to ask specifically
kind of what impact do you think the IGF can have on this
particular issue over the coming year. And we’re looking for really concrete, specific ideas. That question should, in various
variations, come up during the sessions themselves but we’ve
also put a survey up on the home page with a link so that you can
specifically – because in any session, if it’s an hour-long
session, even if you have 30 minutes
for engagement in the larger sessions you’re not going to
hear from everybody, not even from
nearly everybody. But we really do
want the opportunity for everybody to get their voices in
so we’re asking people to submit through
that survey. Again, any concrete suggestions,
any ideas you have on what the IGF or the IGF ecosystem could
do to concretely advance those topics over the coming year. Renata.
>>AUDIENCE: Just a quick addition. We are really – this
is a really interactive and
community-driven IGF. So in addition to
what the chair has just said, we are receiving inputs from
multiple number of ways and the outcomes and the survey. The
main sessions have new formats. So do you want to be up there,
do you want to be a speaker, you
haven’t got a speaker slot yet, come to
the main sessions and I would recommend you coming to the
human rights main session because
we’re going to leave a chair up there
for you to come and speak. So these are innovations.
They’re sessions we’re working on,
ideas lab, so please make sure your voice is heard.>> LYN: Another excellent
point, thank you. Any question is
fine. Modalities of participation,
Tunis agenda, code of conduct. We’re here to facilitate
participation and get a ramp up in terms
of your participation. I can ask Anja if there’s
anything else she would like to add. >> AnNJA: Not now that you know
our faces. We hope we get to speak one-on-one with you at the
venue. We hope for a big
registration. We had the highest number ever. So we’ll
see what the next three days will bring
to us and that’s all I would like
to add and we can maybe conclude this session because we’re
tonight top of the hour. Yes, Mary
>> >>AUDIENCE: Can you tell us
about the interpretations, the sessions that will be
interpreted? >> ANJA: All the main sessions,
eight main sessions coincident with the eight themes we have
and there are the opening and closing ceremonies. All of them have simultaneous
interpretation in the six UN languages but it
is only those sessions that do. So again, the main sessions,
opening and closing ceremonies have
interpretation in the six UN languages. I was going to
mention that we also have a very robust
online participation as well and platform.
Again, we strive to be as inclusive as possible and you needn’t
have the time or means to travel to some city to participate so
we have a very robust platform with
all of our sessions again are
streamed, they’re all transscribed. There’s facilities for remote
participants, or online participants as I prefer, online
participants to come in and participate in the sessions and
get their questions or comments fed
into the session as well. So we’re continuing to work to
improve that but if there are people back home that you think
would be particularly interested in some of these sessions, then,
again, the information is available and I think the
sessions, once they’re streamed and
transcribed, are put on the web the same day, sometimes within
hours of the session happening. If there are no more comments
and as somebody said, we had the luxury of returning 10 minutes,
six minutes or something of time back to you. We thank you very
much and very interested in your perceptions and reflections and
comments given you’re the first –
this is your first IGF. So please, take advantage of the
stock taking and all the opportunities
we have to actually hear from you. Thank you. IGF 2018 of #40 ISOC Open Forum @IGF2018
Future of IGF: “The world is much better with the
IGF than without it. ” 9:20 to 10: 20 “9:20 to 10:20
>>MODERATOR: Hello, everybody. Please take your seat. Thank
you for coming and welcome all of you and congratulation, you all
found room XI, the first meeting of the day from our perspective. My name is Frederic Donck. We have a
tradition, that is to invite communities, plural, or members
or chapters of members and actually who is interested to
discuss what we feel are critical
issues when we start the IGF. So that is our tradition. You
will see and you will have seen from
the invitations that we have some
interesting subject that we’d like to discuss with you and you
will see how seriously we take a collaborative process because
you will be asked and called to
really contribute. We will have also a panel that
will help us in this conversation
and I will introduce it to you in a few minutes. Before I do that, I would like
to seize this occasion to also introduce to you Mr Andrew
Sullivan who will spend a bit of time to just work you through the
intentions to drive the Internet Society in the next coming
months and years. So Andrew, if you
could take the floor and join us. Thank you very much .
>>ANDREW SULLIVAN: Good morning, everyone. Thank you
for the kind introduction. I started as the CEO of the
Internet Society in September and what
I have learned is that the Internet has been created so
that I can be on airplanes. People started
asking me where are you based and
I’ve come to tell them in airports. This is not, of course, a
permanent fact, though, because the
interesting thing about the Internet Society is how many
places and how many people we are. We’re made up, as a society, of
participants, of members of chapters, of organizational
members all around the world and this
frames the basic way that we think about how the Internet works.
We like to say it’s for everyone.
How do we put that into action this year? We put out an action
plan and it’s now on our website, so I won’t bore you
with a recitation of those. But I want to do highlight a
couple of things that I think are
important in frame ing this panel today.
Because the Internet is for everyone, we have several key
pieces that we’re trying to ensure.
One is to make sure that we connect
everybody in the world. So connectivity is extremely uneven
throughout the world, despite the fact that there are a large
number of places where connectivity is quite good.
There are also many places where connectivity
is extremely bad and unlikely to get better without concerted
action by a large number of participants in the Internet
Society and in the wider society.
So we continue to work on that connectivity through our efforts
on community networks and also
through our efforts around IXPs. Those are key initiatives for
us. But another thing that is super important for us is building the trust in the infrastructure
itself, that people need to believe that the Internet works and the
reason they need to believe that is because that’s how the
Internet works. The Internet is a network of
networks and if people don’t connect
willingly and they don’t collaborate with one another, we
don’t have the Internet at all. This
is not some weird political stance
that we have, it’s a fundamental fact of the Internet. That
means people need to believe that the
Internet infrastructure is trustworthy. That when you hook
up to it it’s not dangerous. That’s why we continue to work
on the issues around security of the Internet of Things,
particularly with respect to consumer
devices because we don’t want people to believe the devices
they’re bringing into their homes are going to destroy them.
And we want people to believe that
the fundamental infrastructure of
the Internet, the routing infrastructure, is not hostile
to them. A problem that has festered in
the Internet structure for many, this years and we continue to
work on that. You should see our manners
project produce it’s observatory soon. The observatory is a way to look
at the outcomes in the Internet routing infrastructure and to
decide whether that routing
infrastructure is doing what it said it would.
This is a tremendous opportunity to restore that fundamental
functioning of the way the Internet works. You operate
your network, I operate my network,
and we implement the common protocols and then we work
together to do that. That’s also how the governance
of the Internet has to work. It has to work that way because if
it doesn’t, you don’t get the Internet. The Internet just is a kind of
collaboration. And that’s the reason that the IGF
is important because this is a forum where we can come together
and try to work on that interoperation, that emergent
technology that benefits us all so
much. When the Internet Society was
founded there was no question. Somebody said do you want to
hook up to the Internet, people would
say “Oh, yes, more Internet, always good. More connectivity
always good.”In the last couple of years I’ve started to notice
that people are not too sure. They’re starting to become
afraid of the Internet. They’re forgetting the big value
that we get from the Internet because it’s
become ubiquitous and all we see are the problems.
We need to work together. The Internet Society, the entire
Internet community, we need to work together to make sure that
we deliver the benefits of the
Internet to the entire world. If we don’t do that, we’re going to
lose a tool that is best for the development of all humanity.
We have rarely seen a technology that enables so much good for so
many people. So let us work together this week to make sure
that we deliver that kind of benefit
to all humanity, securely, in a trustworthy way, that we can
connect everybody. The Internet is for everyone and
the Internet Society wants to make that true. With that I’m going to turn it
back to Frederic. Thank you very much. (Applause)
>>MODERATOR: Thank you for your words. For those who are
interested to know more about our 2019 plan, it’s available on
the website so please don’t hesitate
to check on it and ask questions to everybody here in this room
from the Internet Society starting
with Andrew, of course. Let’s get to the main session of
today. As I said, we used to organize a session when we start
the IGF with some critical issues. This one has been carefully
cooked by Raquel. You see on the invitation, the IGF, the
world is better with the IGF than
without. It says it all. We hear through community that
is some people might have some fatigue about the IGF. Some
people say it should be taken care of
or improved or whatever vocabulary. We wanted to know
more about that and to ask you what are
your thoughts. To help us, I have the chance to
have a wonderful panel around us with people who know a lot about
the IGF, starting with you, Tomas, Tomas Schneider. When I see your CV, you are
pretty much everywhere when it comes to IGF. You were the host last year, you
are a representative today. You are also a founder of the
ULIC. Thank you for being here with
us. Do we have David Matineau in the
room. David, thank you for being
there. You are the host this year and
ambassador for cyber diplomacy. Thank you for being
with us. We have Gunter Drathwell. He
will be the host next year. The
three governments who are responsible with hosting the
IGF, Gunter, you’re from the German
Ministry for Economic Affairs. Thank you for being here. That is my panel and I’d like
also to acknowledge Lynn St Amour. You are the chair of the MAG and
we will ask your feelings about IGF
now. So you will see, we will have
our experts and then we will turn to
you, we will break this room in two parts and ask you to work a
little bit and tell us what it is that you think. I forgot
Raul of course. You’re in front of
me. Another expert, of course, Raul Echeberria who is the
vice-president of global Engagement.
You will be called to give your thought as you were also part in
so many endeavours since the beginning with the IGF. Sorry
for this. Tomas, why don’t you start with
some of your thought. What is your thought about the current
IGF? Should there be an improvement, what would you say ? No, you can stay there. >> TOMAS: Thank you, Frederic.
Good morning to everybody. Thanks to David and his team for
organize the IGF in Paris. Having done the same in Geneva
last year, I know this is not an easy task. A big thanks to the
French Government as well as to UNESCO and of course the
hard-working friends at the IGF secretariat. We also know what
it means for them to organize an IGF so we’re happy that they’re
still alive and here and thank them a lot for their great work
that they’re doing. With regard to your question, we
need to understand where the IGF comes from. The IGF was a result of a
compromise at World Information Summit in 2003,
2005, towards enhanced corporation. I
won’t go into detail about because that will take the whole
session. The IGF was a compromise that at least common denominator to talk
about intergovernment issues, we might call it digital issues
today and it was established. It was an experiment, something
new for the UN to have a multi
stakeholder. But this is fundamental, in the shaping, in the set up
and the organization of the meeting and the content of the dialog.
Our hope was the IGF would serve as a way to make people
understand what the issues are, what you’re talking about, what are so-called respective roles
are in particular aspect of digital
or Internet governance and that it would serve as a catalyst for
corporation. Corporation of different stakeholders with
different experience, different mandates, different resources in a
solution-orientated, opportunity-seizing orientated
way. Now we are like 12, 13 years
after that decision, some of us have
been going through all the IGFs, participated in all of them. We have about 80 national and
regional IGF structures that have taken
up in different variations, the model of the IGF and I think that
basically the IGF has and is still fulfilling the purpose of
being a forum where people get
together, they learn from each other,
they understand the issues better, they may hopefully
understand their own roles better and they
engage in cooperation. But as you refer to, there is
among certain of us, or many of us,
some kind of fatigue in the sense that, OK, we’ve had this
now, this has been established but
that’s not enough. This is something that you hear from
many people that if you ask them which direction should we go,
this is where the problem, of course, starts.
I think most of us do not want to create a new top-down
structure in the UN that will deal with
all aspects of digital governance or Internet governance but
nevertheless there is a sense that
something is missing and if you look at the way that the digital
world has developed since the IGF was created, we have now lots of
different and new applications and tools that we didn’t even
know they existed in 2005 or if you
knew they existed they didn’t really take as much space in our
daily lives like they do now.
Just talking about social media but also other aspects, of
course. So there has been an enormous
development in terms of what is possible technically, what
applications we use, also connection has made enormous progress,
connectivity. We’re not there yet
with connecting the whole world. And on the governance level and
political level, on the cooperation level, not that much
progress has achieved. So we’re lagging a little behind in terms
of how to deal with the the issues.
But the question is what does that mean? What does that have an
effect on the IGF? What we, as the organizer last year,
together with some others, tried to do is basically keep the IGF in its
existing role as a space for dialog and not for negotiation,
as a space for bringing people
together, enhancing understanding, building capacities, inciting cooperation but improving its interactivity, trying to improve
its political visibility with high-level representatives of
all stakeholders which is a challenge because everybody says
that – or many people say the IGF should not start negotiating
outcomes, in particular this comes from the private sector and some
Western countries. At the same time it’s the same
stakeholders who say I can’t come
to the IGF because my boss doesn’t allow me because it’s
not creating outcomes. So there’s a
bit of a chicken and egg problem in terms of what the IGF should
do and why people say it’s maybe not what it should be which I
think we need to be transparent and honest about and also explain if
we still think the IGF should remain a forum for dialog and
not start negotiating outcomes then
we should explain why we think this is important and we should
explain to the political leaders why we think that they should,
nevertheless, or in particular because it is not a negotiating
forum, participate in this. So what we tried to do last year
is to make the outcome a little more tangible by introducing the
so-called Geneva messages. That is not something that we
invented. We’ve done this since the
beginning. It tries to capture the
discussion in a more readable, easier to access format,
informative short bullets that hopefully people use when they go home to
their silos and institutions that
they can refer to by saying this is the latest stage of the discussion as it was held at the
IGF. We also tried to improve the
interactivity. We think that the inclusiveness is unique at the
IGF, if you compare it to other conferences. We keep fighting
for having as little minutes devoted to panelists and to
speakers on the floor but to give the
maximum amount of speaking time to the audience because I think
the more we use the crowd intelligence that is gathering
at the IGF the more insights that we
get. But we think that we should not
necessarily fundamentally change the IGF. We can improve it in elements on
its operational side, with the MAG, the way things are
prepared. Of course we should improve the resource situation,
we should make it more planable, approve the MAG earlier so that
they can start work at the beginning of the year. We had
some positive signals that this is
actually working this year. What we would need is a more
political figure on top or as a visible face of the IGF like we
had it with the special adviser
for the UN Secretary-General and his office on Internet
governance issues. This is also not
something new. The question is who
designates and who decides who that political figure would be.
Maybe we just let the IGF community put forward some names
and vote on it instead of having
some small club deciding about this
because this is one of the problems why it didn’t happen.
So there are a number of things that can and should be done to
improve the IGF but we think that basically the IGF is not
wrong. It still serves its purpose and
it should, in our view, continue to everybody its purpose.
Where we’re missing out is in terms of cooperation, in terms
of follow-up action on the
discussions at the IGF. We think that this is the key element to drive
the digital world in a way that everybody in the world is
benefitting from what is available in
terms of new applications and technologies.
So we have great hopes in the UN Secretary-General’s panel on the
digital cooperation that this may help us, not just
strengthening the IGF and use the IGF as the
basis as the first step for people to get together but go home from
the IGF and cooperate in a more structured way using principles
of inclusivity, transparency, accountability, openness, some diversity, and that after the
IGF the gaps are filled between
having just a talk shop and having new
UN institutions or existing UN institutions with new mandate.
I think there’s a lot of room for
improving digital cooperation so let me finish by saying don’t
blame the IGF, improve digital cooperation. Thank you.
>>MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Tomas. From what I hear
then, don’t touch the DNA of the IGF
but you see that the the issue might be political and social be
the solution? Yeah, OK. David, thank you for being the
host today. What’s your take about
the IGF situation? >> DAVID: Thank you for giving
me the floor. Hello, everybody, welcome to Paris. We’re happy
to have you here. We already, as you’ve mentioned, we managed to
have a rainy day so that you don’t have any regret for being
focused on the IGF panels. We see if we consider that
everybody’s worked enough in the coming
days if we can have a sunny day, we’ll see about that.
I think we’re very much in line with what Tomas said. I was out
of the room but I know what he was saying because we’ve been –
first, because we’ve been knowing each other for years now
and, second, because we thought that
it would be very useful to work as
a troika, sort of a troika with the outgoing host country and
with the incoming host country which
is Germany and so we’ve talked
amongst ourselves about what should be doing with the IGF.
Very much in line with what Tomas
said. The fact that President Ma Macron offered to host the IGF,
you told me about that in February, I
went back to Paris and made the proposal which was eventually
accepted in April. So the reason why he offered to host the IGF,
France is very attached to the UN
system. We believe it is incredibly
useful and because it’s unique and we believe it has a
role to play includeing all topics
of Internet governance. Having said that, we believe the
IGF should maybe in a way, come back to its DNA and its mandate
that was given in 2005 in Tunis
and maybe try to do more in the coming years. So we sort of
decided to take stock with what our friends did last year with
the Geneva messages. They will be
Paris messages this year and maybe
Berlin messages next year, but that’s out of my control. We believe that it’s not enough
anymore to have the kind of discussions that we’ve been
having for years at the IGF . We
believe the community expect to say be consulted. We believe
the community expects to be in a
position to give its advice or its
position. The problem is – and we need the community
to express itself and define what could be
a global position or ideas on such and such topic.
Why? Because we see new challenges every day. In the
digital world there is a new topic every
day. Fortunately some of them
vanish otherwise we would be more than occupied. And as
government representative, I can tell you that we need to have
the kind of feedback that can help
us to define what a smart, political resolution should be.
So this is where we are and we believe that if we want to be in a good position to rely on these
possible recommendations, we need the process that would lead to
these recommendations to be unquestionable and for that we
need it to be transparent, we need
it to be open, we need it to be understandable, we need it to be
universal and efficient. So this is the sort of very easy
mission that we have ahead of us,
we believe, and we believe that it is up to the community to think, to conceive the sort of
grammar of the multi stakeholder approach that we’re trying to
follow. It’s not an easy task but
unless we manage to make the sort of progress we need on how
to define what is legitimate voice,
what are fair consultations, how
do we organize the work of the community to be able to write these sort of recommendations, we if
we managed to do that then we would
have made a fantastic progress. Very much in line with Tomas again on the fact that we
believe the IGF needs to have a more
permanent role. We need Lynn to be
better helped to have more resources, to have more
possibilities to travel to meet with political
and economic and social leaders around the world and we need her
to be the voice, well, her, not
personally but as the MAG chair to do that kind of mission that
is absolutely crucial for us. I may pause here but first I
want to say that the very fact that the website of the UN IGF is
under attack today shows that it’s a strategic place and I wouldn’t
be surprised if UN
Secretary-General Gutierrez and President Macron were to address
this very topic this afternoon. So again, welcome, everybody, in
Paris and I wish you more fruitful discussions here.
Thanks. >>MODERATOR: Thank you very
much, David. Thank you for those
very nice words. You should expect maybe some question from
this community about what do you mean
by consultation in the process but that might come later.
Gunter, the last part of the troika then, tell us what is
your take? >> GUNTER: Thank you very much
and good morning, everyone. I would like to thank, in
particular, David Martineau, and his team
for preparing here this global conference in a very short time.
It must have been a lot of work. We know how much work it is
because we are preparing the next IGF2019 but we had much
more time, more than 18 months but we
see already it’s really a challenge to organize it but we
are doing it with a lot of passion because we believe really in the
basic approach of this forum here, the multi stakeholder
approach. It’s really important that the
Internet remains an open, secure, reliable interoperable and truly
global infrastructure and is more and more a challenge in this
times and I think that this forum
here is the right place to keep the Internet as it was, room for
innovation, for growth, for employment, for new ideas for creativity and so on That’s the reason why the
Ministry for Economic Affairs in Berlin has decided last year to
organize in 2019 the next Internet
Governance Forum. This forum has a future, it will continue.
On the basic philosophy I do not have much to add than the
previous speaker said already. We see us completely here in a continuous line with colleagues from
Switzerland, with Tomas Schneider and David Martineau. From Geneva to Paris to Berlin
in the meaning that we think we
should strengthen the IGF a little
bit. It’s not so easy to strengthen
it but we all want to put effort here on that challenge and it’s
really important, we should make it more relevant.
How to make it more relevant? Tomas said already, we need
perhaps more tangible outcomes. We need perhaps more political visibility
and we should improve interaction, it’s true. How could we tackle
this challenge? First of all we need relevant
agenda and I think relevant agenda is the product of a discussion among multi stakeholders so this
is the right way to put the
important and relevant topics on the
table. In this regard IGF is perfect. There’s no room for more
improvement. Here we are really brilliant but what can be improved is the outreach, the process for
having an impact of the discussion that take place here.
We have to raise awareness of all the issues, topics, discussions
taking part in this forum among the general public. This is
also part of the mandate that was
agreed on in Tunis in 2005. So we should work on this more perhaps
than before. What is need to do achieve this,
I think first of all we should get all key stakeholders from
all regions of the world onboard.
The German Government has decided to make some money
available for the United Nations in order to
cover travel expenses from
participants that come from the global south and they should come
to Berlin, this is one point to make it a global event, a global
discussion should take place. First point.
Second point is we want to integrate more the business community
and high-level representatives of governments and how can we
achieve this? I hope we can achieve this if we have a
high-level segment like it is here also in
Paris. President M Macron will open
this afternoon. When we achieve to attach more
high-level people coming to the forum then that will bring also
other high-level people to the forum and perhaps also business
and we have one day, the day before the IGF starts, the
so-called day zero before the IGF, that we want to make something
perhaps more official where something can be adapted or agreed on kind
of recommendation or kind of declaration among ministers.
We’re still in the process of thinking about that but perhaps
it’s a possibility to combine such
a discussion platform like the IGF, multi stakeholder approach
and something that is more official.
We are still in the process of thinking how to do this but
these are our ideas. We tried to contact directly to
go to business people, to business
representatives, to integrate them and we are coming – or we
are working at the Ministry of
Economic Affairs so we have the context and we hope we can hear the
community and make it more relevant,
as said before. Then we want to – last point is
that we want particular put a focus on the corporation also
with parliaments and here today in Paris we have a Parliament
delegation that is attending here from
Germany and also from the European Parliament. This good
practice, we want to continue also in Berlin. So we are really proud and we
are delighted that IGF next year will take place in Berlin in
November from 25-29 November and we will not only host the IGF next
year but also a kind of
preparatory or parallel meeting of Internet and jurisdiction
from 3-5 June, also in Berlin. And we hope that we can get some
input for the discussion later in
November coming out of this conference We are cooperating very closely
also with, of course, with the national IGF, German IGF, which
is a really strong and very important partner for us. So I very much hope to see many
of you also next year in the multi stakeholder events in Germany
and only together we will maintain
the stability and the innovative power and all those positive outcomes that are promised by
such well-established platform like the Internet Governance Forum.
Thank you very much. >>MODERATOR: Thank you very
much. (Applause) >>MODERATOR: Raul Echeberria,
what’s your take? >>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: Thank you.
Good morning, everybody. When I listen to Thomas speaking about
the inception of the IGF in 2003, 2005 I was part of the
negotiation. I was heavily involved with
the negotiation. It looked like it was yesterday but it was 13
years ago. But first of all let me add my
voice to add to our cause this year, the Government of France,
through our colleague David
Martineau. Thank you very much for taking the time to be with
us in a busy day. I know that you
are very busy preparing, not only
the IGF but also the participation of the President of France that
will highlight the importance of this forum.
Thank you very much also to the Government of Germany because
taking the lead on organizing the next IGF that we think will
be crucial in this process of promoting
changes and transformations of the IGF and it’s very good to
see the government, the previous host, the current host and the
future host working together to align on this issue. I publish a blog about IGF, the
title of the blog was Let’s Reform
the IGF. I published that blog in March
and I have to say that have a lot of repercussions at
the time. In fact it was surprising for many people and
the level of the conversations since March has changed a lot.
It is amazing to see how many people have added their voices
to their idea to promote improvements of IGF. One of the sentences that I
included in my blog is the same that
my colleague Raquel had made famous because, in fact, this is
the title of this session, that is
the world is much better with the
IGF than without the IGF. So that it says a lot about our position with regard to the IGF.
What we are proposing is not to disband IGF, to create something new, we are proposing to improve
this forum and the idea behind it is the IGF is the most noble
thing the government has experienced
in our life. The investment we have made the
IGF, how the community has learned to participate, to work together
with a different logic than their
traditional governance system, not building majorities but
trying to be consensus, means
transparent, open, it’s something that is a
huge asset for the community. It would be very bad if the
stakeholders start to think this is
not the most relevant place for coming to discuss the most
relevant issues. So this is why we have to improve the IGF, in
order to make it, to continue making it attractive for all the stakeholders to come together to
solve all their facing challenges. As many people, the panelists,
including Andrew, say before, the
Internet is very different than the Internet in 2005. We have –
sorry, the Internet is an intrinsic component of every
human activity today. This is why
it’s important, it’s important for
the governments and for the community in general.
So we need to deal with a lot of challenges that are coming up every day and so the impact of
the technology and the Internet are
producing in the life of the people is big and this is why we need
relevant forum to say deal with those issues.
I agree with everything that has been said before and this is a
very good news and probably the most important outcome of this discussion is that the level of
agreements. There are many, many
practical things that we can do in order to improve the IGF and
some of them have already been mentioned. I would add we
cannot continue having the number of
sessions, competing sessions that we
have so far. We need to more focus IGF , base it on issues as we
have been discussing with Thomas. Not base exclusively in the meeting itself but we need to
improve the intercessional activities. When we say inter-sessional
activities, we need to connect better
with our forums to push for the outcomes of our discussions so
they are considering the discussions that are had in
other places, we need to decide when more
discussion is needed on a topic within
this community so we need to provide the avenues for
continuing the discussions in between two
meetings and. Gunter mentioned the high-level
discussion. Thomas also talked
about the outcomes. We already produce outcomes in
many meetings, in many forums, but I like it
very much the way that Thomas put this and the correlation of the
same people that complain about the lack of outcomes are the
same people that shake their improvements in order to produce
outcomes. But we are already doing that. Everything is in producing outcomes, the regional IGF, we
produce outcomes in a very novelty
way, producing outcomes without introducing formal negotiations
mechanisms. This is very novel. So we can do that again.
We can have the level there, the high-level discussions probably
to analyze those outcomes. If we have few tracks, we are
focused on few tracks, not 100 parallel
sessions, and so we can produce some kind of outcomes. We can’t
review those outcomes in a high-level discussion. Probably the end of the meeting
not the beginning. It’s good to see that the
Internet Society has been strongly
committed with IGF and is still strongly committed and so we are bringing content . This year we have again
beautiful group of young leaders coming to the IGF
through our leadership programs. We want to continue working with
all the community. We will do that but we have to keep in mind
that if we – if the discussions refer to many places we also
have to distribute our resources to
be present everywhere, to follow discussions in ten forums.
This is one of the reasons because we need to strengthen
this place. Let’s reform IGF, not to destroy
it. Let’s reform the IGF to improve it because the world
is much better with IGF than without it. Thank you very
much. >>MODERATOR: Thank you, Raul.
(Applause) >>MODERATOR: Thank you, indeed
I have heard no-one challenges what you just said, that the
world is a better place with it IGF.
So it may be one of the main sentence we keep in mind.
Lynn, you were kind enough to say you were ready to say a few
words. I would like to include you in a broader conversation
because there is a principle in IGF is that the plans never go
as planned and I’ve been told that
we have no time anymore to break this room because we are close
to the end. So Lynn, if you can say a few
words and I would like some of you
to react as well. Thank you. >> LYNN ST ARMOUR: Thank you. And
I would like to thank everyone who organized this as well. I was approached last night so a
warning. IGF has changed so many
fundamental practices in our day-to-day
experiences. I’m not going to go through all of them here.
There are a couple that I will point
out because I really would like to
be very brief in my comments and really engage the audience.
We’ve instructed all the workshop organizers that they
should plan on 50% of their session being
left for participation from the people in the room and, of
course, we’re well beyond that now.
There have been many, many improvements. We have working
groups on improvements, we have a
working group working on multiyear
strategic work program, we have another working group that has
been focused on fund-raising, that is a significant problem
with the IGF today. We are an extra budgetary
project of the United Nations. All of the funds
support the secretariat, some developing country participation
activities and some staff and consultants for some of the
intersessional activities. These annual events are actually
hosted by the host country, this year, France, and we are very
thankful to David Martineau and the
French government for hosting and supporting us this year.
Many of the improvements we’re
looking for require more staff and
resource to say be quite direct about it.
The secretariat runs on a staff of four and one of those is an
IT person. If you can imagine what
that takes to work cooperatively with over 110 national regional
and IGF youth initiatives, with over four best practice forums,
over 17 dynamic coalitions, and a major policy initiative,
connecting and enabling the next billion,
and, of course, try to support and drive the work of 55 very active MAG. It’s a Herculean task. That’s
one of the roadblocks to the IGF doing even more.
My last comment would be we have all focused much more on tangible
outcomes. How can we make all the outputs and outcomes we get from the work of the IGF more
accessible. I mean accessible more
broadly. More concise, more useful, more directed, more
topical as well as, of course, more
findable on the IGF website as well. Last year we did pilot something
called Geneva Messages. That was
for the main sessions only. It was a pilot that was well
supported by the IGF community so we have now sort of
institutionalized that, if you will. Going forward there will
be IGF messages because they are
messages of the community and we are
doing them not only for the main sessions but also for every
workshop session and we’re also focused much more thematically
this year than we have been in past years.
What I would like everybody to do, many of the workshops are
doing this themselves and many of them
have learned from a lot of the national and regional IGF
initiatives, are really trying at the end to try and engage people and
pulling out a small number of key
messages themselves and looking for some sort of reaction from
the people that are participating in
the room and online, with whether
or not those messages resonate with the discussion that was
held in the room.
I think that’s an extremely useful piece of work for pulling
some of those messages out but I
think it also doesn’t allow us to tap
into the community as much as we would like. So one of the
things we’re doing, and on the home
page of our website, there’s a survey which will specifically ask what
impact can the IGF have on this topic or this issue, it’s meant
to come from each workshop session, over the next year? .
We want to hear from everybody. We want concrete ideas and on
advancing issues and we’re looking
at a time frame of one to two years. It’s not a we want world
peace sort of statement. I would encourage everybody to
promote that within your own networks. Please go to the
website and do that for the sessions
we participate in, or those that you don’t. If you have a particular point you want to
make on the other topics and themes.
All of our sessions are are streamed and transcribed and
they’re posted so you can even look at
them outside of the IGF, post the IGF and submit comments
subsequently as well. So I want to thank you for the
time. I hope I didn’t take too much but we’re really wanting to
engage deeply with the community,
so jump in. >>MODERATOR: Thank you, Lynn.
I will jump on what you just said. You have unique chance to
talk to the troika. I see the
gentleman there. >>AUDIENCE: My name is Wout De
Natris. That’s correct, thank you. In the past two years I’ve
been able to work on something called strengthening cooperation
in the context of the IGF and it has to iterations by now.
Basically, what that started off with is by literally tapping the IGF
community on what could the IGF be
in the future. We had a room full in Geneva on
day zero and actually everybody started thinking about their own
ideas and then you could see that
a lot converges and a lot of recommendations can be made in a
session of 1.5 hours. I think that that is a major
lesson that if something is truly –
seen as truly important, people will speak their mind.
How do you get to something important that will probably
come from emerging issues, from the
workshop proposals. If you say ten
proposals next year on cyber security, why have ten sessions
instead of telling the people the room is yours, you have to
come up with recommendations at the
end of this session, which will be
published on the IGF website. Do you have to agree? No
because they’re recommendations and ways
forward you can actually learn. That’s something which the
session last year, strengthening cooperation, taught me. People
will speak their mind and will try to think together on getting
something forward. That is one. The other thing that came out is
there could be pilots held in 2019. They are being sort of
advertised in the multiyear working
group, strategic working group that have been made.
The other thing is outreach. If we need more people and
different people on specific topics then
people within the MAG can actually
tap their networks. You can ask people who you know are very
well Versed in specific topics and
experts. You can invite them actively to participate in some
sort of intersessional that comes
together at the IGF. I think the last thing that is
of importance is to celebrate successes. If the IGF actually manages to
come up with an outcome which makes a difference, I’ll
give a very short example of it. When I was working for the
secretariat two, three years ago now,
there was a topic that we’re not allow to do do from the Sea
Search side. We’re not allowed to say we’re going to reach out
to governments. I voted this as a
recommendation anyway because it was really the elephant in the
room. A year later, they were working with the OECD, there was
a whole paper compiled, this is what Sea Search do explaining it
to governments. That came forward from the first
iteration. I never read it anywhere on any
IGF website. We actually managed
to change the mindset of people that are reaching out to
governments and governments understand what Sea Search do.
One example of what it IGF can reach
and we should see people that they should be doing that. So
thank you very much. >>MODERATOR: Thank you. Yes, please.
>>AUDIENCE: Good morning, everyone. My name is Chrissy Aniga
and I have a member of the chapter of Egypt.
I would like first of all to thank France for the efforts
they’ve been putting into the IGF this
year but I would also like to thank ISOC for dedicating space at
this forum to discuss improvements.
It’s a a timely topic to reach out to the global Internet and
have a discussion about that.
I want to tackle one specific point that I have heard
mentioned through the discussions this
morning and that is the point of outreach of the IGF as it needs
improvement. Coming from a region where there is evident need for
such outreach, especially as we’re
talking about government leaders but also leaders from the
different stakeholder groups where this is much needed at the
IGF from the global house.
So I think, and I’ve seen the work that has been done by the MAG,
it’s been there for many, many years. It’s tremendous work. I salute Lynn for orchestrating
that. There’s some integration
between the work of the MAG and the work done by the hosts to
secure high-level segments. I think what we need is not
separate high-level segments but we need those two paths integrated
in a way that the high-level leaders, whether its government
or other stakeholder groups, are
integrated in the agenda as put by the MAG. This is work that
has to be done early on. Next year,
Germany we have the hosts already
this year in place very early on. I think there is an
opportunity to do that through the coming
year between the host country and
the MAG. Thank you very much. >>MODERATOR: Yes, please.
>>AUDIENCE: Thank you. I’m Nadine Amima, ISOC fellow
for this year, and my question is
basically how do you want to in the
future bring governments and companies to listen to academia,
civil society on issues such as surveillance and the use of
drones in war? Thank you.
>>MODERATOR: I will keep your question if you’ve got time, I
love it. Please. >>AUDIENCE: Thank you. I’m a youth at IGF fellow as
well. I would like to thank the French Government, Internet Society,
Google and Microsoft for allowing me to be here. I work with young girls in
Delhi, India, and I wish to know if
there can be an implementation mechanism or something like an SDG compass for IGF to which I can
implement the recommendation made to IGF to improve access to
Internet with young girls in India?
Thank you. >>MODERATOR: Thank you very
much. Last one and then I will have
to wrap up, I’m afraid. >>AUDIENCE: My name is Mary,
I’m from Uganda. I’m also a youth
at IGF fellow. This year I attended my first
IGF from in Uganda and the main theme was creating
online trust which is basically the theme we have this year. My
question is should the regional and national IGF meetings have
the same themes as the main IGF because we have more pressing
national issues in our countries and having people online which is as
a result of if you look at fake news, these are issues that are
a result of having people online which we don’t have. Shouldn’t we as national IGF
chapters be focussing on the issue that is
are in our particular countries and
have more tangible outcomes? Thank you.
>>MODERATOR: Well I believe we won’t have the time to address
those questions but I want to keep them because I think you
three made very good suggestions, how
can we improve the representation, align the themes at regional
level and national level and find
ways to include more people. So we will keep this.
I had a question for the troika, we won’t have time. We have to
wrap up. I see desperate sign from Raquel. But I believe your
message was very clear and what I heard today, Raul, is good
news. Your sentence is still very
valid. I hear we need more IGF. I
hear that people are even more positive on the way we should
make it more relevant, more focused,
more dedicated to includeing other
bodies. So those are all very good
message, including the pragmatic message from Lynn. This community needs to
contribute as they can through those sessions and
through the websites. So please continue to feed us. ISOC take
this very seriously. So we continue to collect your ideas
but I believe at least what we heard today is very encouraging.
We need more IGF than less IGF. So thank you for being here. I
know there is a bit of frustrations but that’s the
start of the IGF so enjoy this wonderful moment of exchange.
Thank you very much. (Applause) IGF 2018WS #104 Well-being in
the Digital Age (OECD Going Digital Project) 10:30 to 12:00>>MODERATOR: Thanks so much
for coming today. We’ve got quite a
big room. If you wouldn’t mind sort of coming in toward the
middle and coming up to the front. I think that may make
the conversation we’re going to have
a little bit later a little bit more of a conversation and less of us talking to you.
I’m really delighted to welcome you to today’s workshop on
well-being in the digital age. My name is Molly Lesher,er. I
work in the OECD, which is here in
Paris. We really try to focus on
developing better policies for better lives. I’d also like to thank the other
cosponsors of the workshop. We have Carlos da Fonseca from
Brazil and Marc Rotenberg from the
CSAC. We decided to propose this
workshop because we see that digital
technologies have both positive and negative impacts on the overall well-being on people and
communities and we need to develop appropriate policy
responses. Indeed well-being is one of
the focuses of the OECD Going Digital project which aims to
help policymakers better understand
the digital transformation that’s
taking place and to create policy environment for it to
prosper. Now well-being is a specific
focus of the OECD Going Digital project. This is really ongoing
work so your input on it is really much appreciated. My colleague, Fabrice Murtin will
discuss this in more detail. We’re seeing designing
appropriate responses is becoming
increasingly complicated because of the radical way in which
digital transformation is impacting all of our lives. So,
for example, we see growing pressure
to compete with machines in the workplace, the use of algorithms
and digital platforms enableing
patient healthcare. But you see privacy concerns and the impact
of automation on children’s development and human relations,
all illustrate how the new digital
context affects the drivers of individual well-being. Now, this workshop really aims
to help shed some light on how policymakers can develop a
whole-of-government policy framework
that balances all of these different dimensions and all of
the positive and negative impacts. So now we’re first going to hear
from Fabrice Murtin to discuss work he’s leading on measuring
well-being in the digital age. We’re going to hear from the
distinguished members of our panel,
which are, I’ll introduce separately otherwise you’re not
going to know who they are right now.
And then we really want to have an
active exchange with you all as well as with those folks who may
be online. So now I’m going to turn over to
Fabrice to come and sort of present the ongoing work. Fabrice is the head of unit and
the OECD household statistics and
progress measurement commission. He’s a researcher in Paris and
his work really focuses on well-being measurement, the
long-term dynamics of economic development and economic policy. So Fabrice, the floor is yours.
>>FABRICE MURTIN: Thank you, Molly. Good morning, everyone. It’s my pleasure to introduce
the new report entitled Well-being
in the Digital Age. This report is at the junction of two
strands of work. First our work on well-being –
is it working? No. So the first strand of work is
about well-being. This activity has taken place in the aftermath
of the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission. It has led to
several key outputs from the OECD such as the better health index and
the framework. Can I have the next
slide, please. In this well-being framework one
measures well-being today by highlighting 11 key dimensions
of well-being – health, education, income, security, jobs and so on
and so forth. The second strand of work is a
Going Digital project which
involves several directorates at OECD and reviews the digital
transformation on society and the economy.
Our report will focus on people. What does a digital
transformation have in terms of consequences on people’s
well-being? Next slide, please. We aim to make three
contributions. One is to provide a
comprehensive review of the positive and negative impacts of
the digital transformation and
people’s well-being. What we call the
opportunities and the risk of the digital transformation. Secondly, we operationalize
these conceptual framework, in a sense, and create synthetic
digital risk and opportunities in
order to map countries in this dual space. And thirdly, we highlight the data gaps that
still exist in this landscape. Our overarching mainstay could
be summarized into safe technologies could improve the
life of those who have the skills
to use them. So this is really two-sided. On the one hand we
acknowledge the many opportunities that the digital
transformation brings about as it provides
information for free, consumption bundles and it also yields
efficiency gains. On the other hand, there are
several risks, actually three main
risks. One is a digital divide. As people defer in differ in
Internet access and age, and people have
different levels of digital skills. Secondly, digital literacy is
difficult to acquire. Digital literacy can be described as a
complex bundle of cognitive and emotional skills that are needed
to navigate safely into the digital world in order to sort
out information quality, have self-control over one’s digital involvement in order to avoid
mental health problems. Thirdly, digital insecurity
issues resulting to the cyber hacking
and cyber bullying, for instance. Happy digitalization would
require equal digital opportunities, widespread digital literacy and
safe digital environments. For the sake of time, I cannot
enter into details, of course, but this illustrates what the report
brings about. This is the least of key impacts from the digital
transformation on people’s well-being. It is actually a table for each
dimension of people’s well-being. One has reviewed
the opportunities and risk entailed
by the digital transformation. We also try to operationalize
this conceptual framework by listing some indicators for each
dimension of well-being. Those indicators capture the key
impacts that can be either opportunities or risk. Those indicators, 33 in total,
are summarized in what we call a digital well-being well. As an
example here’s a well for Finland. The inner cycleinner cycle
refers to the minimum outcome and the second inner
circle refers to the maximum outcome observed among OECD
countries. In blue are the opportunities. In yellow are
the risk. So you can immediately
see that in Finland, for instance,
there are large opportunities and relatively low digital risk. Interestingly, we do that for
36OECD countries. On the left-hand side you can see that in Italy
one can observe high risk and low
opportunities. On the contrary, high opportunities and low risk
in Finland, as I just said. And there are a couple of countries
such as Australia which are characterized by large data
gaps. To provide a kind of overview of
a digital risk and digital opportunities, one creates two
things, synthetic indicators by aggregating all opportunities
together and all risk subcomponents together in order to have two
synthetic indices, one for opportunities and one for risk. Here is the outcome from this
exercise. The first interesting finding is
that there is zero correlation between digital risk and digital
opportunities. So reaping the
opportunities does not necessarily come with facing
higher risk. If you go clockwise, starting
from the upper right quadrant where
are countries with high risk and high opportunities, two of them can be singled out, the United
Kingdom. Going down, this is the place
where countries would like to be with facing low risk and reaping
higher opportunities. One country such as Norway, Finland,
and New Zealand. Then countries such as Greece
and Latvia have low risk and low opportunities. And finally countries such as
Hungary or Italy face high risk and low
opportunities. It is beyond the scope of this
report to try to understand the key sources, the key mechanism
behind the creation of opportunities and the emergence of digital
risk. However, one notices a strong correlation between this
indicator of digital opportunities and access to Internet. So having
access to the Internet appears to be a necessary condition, not a
sufficient condition, a necessary condition in order to reap
digital opportunities. On the other end there is no
correlation between Internet access
and digital risk. Probably due to the fact that digital risk
are multifaceted, as I said earlier
in introduction. Finally, there are still
important gaps to be filled in that
field. Countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Israel,
the US, still needs an important share
of the indicators, the key subcomponent indicators that we
have collected. This report also contained some
statistical agenda going forward which is directed towards
national statistical offices and the
national academic community. These pave the way for filling
the data gaps, in a sense. To conclude, I would like to
express some caveats. As evidence in
certain dimensions about the key impacts of the digital
transformation, it’s still debated, scattered, so we want to be
conscious in this field and avoid definite conclusions.
Secondly there is a true need for harmonizing existing
measures and finally, the statistical
exercise that is contained in this report has been heavily
time-consuming so it is not something that can be replicated easily, I
would say. Thank you very much. (Applause)
>>MODERATOR: Thanks a lot, Fabrice. I think what you
mentioned there at the end is very
important. It’s been time-consuming
because you’ve been working across all of the different
policy communities at the OECD to
really try to understand how to measure
well being and all the different dimensions. We all know having
a solid evidence base is
absolutely essential to making good
policies. So thanks very much for that. Now we’re going to turn to the
rest of the panel. I’ve asked them to respond to sort of two
different questions. The first is what are the three most important
dimensions of individual and societal
well-being in the digital age? This is to get to how do you
assess on balance the risks and opportunities that Fabrice
mentioned. The second question is it’s
clear there are both positive and negative impacts of digital
technologies on the well-being of
people in communities and how can policymakers best assess and
manage those trade-offs. That might vary by countries.
So to start us off, I’m really pleased we have Ambassador
Monica Aspe who represents Mexico at
the OECD. She was previously a vice
minister of communications in Mexico where she promoted the
implementation of public policies stemming from the
telecommunications reform of 2013 which really aims at
universal access to Telecom services and
led to the innovative, international contest of a
network that will provide telecom
service to say more than 100 million Mexicans as well as
among other important initiatives. Monica, the floor is yours .
>>MONICA ASPE: The most important part is that I cochair
the Going Digital friends group in
the OECD. Thank you for this invitation. The question is not easy because
it’s hard to choose. The digital transformation
really impacts all aspects of well-being. So we’re choosing the most
important of difficult questions.
Three areas which are very important and highly related
amongst them and the Going Digital
initiative has done remarkable work which is education and skills,
jobs and employment, wages, and work/life balance. So these are three very related
that are for well-being in any of our
countries. The first one, education and
skills. As the nature of jobs changes so do the skills
required to perform them. And this, of
course, shapes the labor markets, but this also must
shape the education systems, both formal
and informal. There are upsides and opportunities and of course
downsides and challenges. On the upside, the
opportunities, we see learning infrastructure,
we are open online courses, we have open educational resources
so we have new educational
infrastructures that can actually help our location systems. We also have
more flexible and personalized train inging, adaptive learning
technologies allow us to have, for
example, information in the moment that students are
performing any task and know what’s
happening and influence and modify the teaching on real-time basis. So
there’s a lot of opportunities in
this sense. Augmentative and virtual
realtive gives opportunities. Students
can learn more in fun and interesting and environments.
So this is also very helpful, especially
for different kind of learning.
We all learn in different ways. What are the challenges? There
is an increase in the labor demand for digital skills, estimated by
55% by 2030. The skills demand the in the labor market are very
different from those taught in the formal education system. Of
course that creates a huge pressure on the education
systems and a need for a life-long
learning and for changing also our formal education systems for
children. We have, therefore, also an
increase in the mismatch between the skills that are generated or
built in the education system and those that are demanded in the
labor market. So we have very large and increasingly large
skills mismatch where people have a
set of skills but can’t find a job for those skills and firms,
companies, require workers with a certain set of skills that do not necessarily exist in the
offer in the labor market. So this
is a big social challenge, of course.
The second point very related, jobs and earnings. So the OECD is working, going digital, that workers have
their existing tasks
automated over the next 50 years. Jobs aren’t automated, tasks
are automated. When tasks are automate to do a certain level,
the job, of course, disappears.
This is 14% of workers but there’s also another 30% of
workers where their jobs is going to
change fundamentally because the tasks performed are going to be
some automated, some transformed and they will have to work every
time more with technologies. And of course there’s also new
jobs. App developers, social media managers, data analyst. On the upside we see the
Internet does lead to the creation of some new
jobs. We know that there’s a very important potential for
home-based businesses, for example,
markets that different exist before for this kind of firms. We also know that work – jobs
can become much more efficient so
that could liberate time from people, from work to other
activities. We also know that the Internet
supports a better global location of skills in the
labor market. So since we can go
more global we can be more efficient in the location of
existing skills and the demand of skills
in the labor market. And international outsourcing can
help SMEs to better compete. Higher
productivity can translate into lower prices, new product. So
there’s an upside. But there’s also challenges.
There’s a distribution effect. Not necessarily the workers who lose jobs are the ones who are fit for skills for jobs
created. So we’re seeing some polar ization in the labor market
where we’re seeing middle level skills
becoming either high-skill jobs or
low-skill jobs. It’s not just about jobs disappearing and
others being created but the kinds of
skills and therefore wages related to the jobs that are
disappearing or being created. This also has a differential
impact for developed and developing
countries. As we globalize these kinds of skills that are
less needed or more needed are not
equally distributed among all of our
countries. So there’s also something to think not only what
we saw in the presentation which is
among OECD countries some seem to
be more of the winners and some more of the losers but even
more, if we go to non-OECD countries,
there is definitely a potential for a distributional effect that
we need to work on through policy.
Third point, work/life balance. The ability to successfully
combine work, family commitments, personal life is
important for the well-being of all members of
a household and, of course, of all humanity. So in the digital transformation
changes this balance for the good and bad.
There is flexibility, which can be great. It can be great, for example, in terms of gender
equality but there is the other side which can bring also long
working hours because of the same longer
working hours because of the same flexibility and we tend to
see more men working extremely long
hours and that creates also a strain, of course, in not only
gender equality but life/work
balance. So policy actions, what can we
do in front of this challenge? Skill policies, the first point
is, you know, policy will set the
difference between the winners and losers in the digital
transformation. So there’s a lot to do in policy.
We need life-long learning. We need to stop thinking of
education as something that is for
children and confined to a formal
education system. We actually are learning more
digital skills outside the formal education
system than in the education system
so there’s a lot of lessons there. We need more aggressive
higher education policies and life-long
learning to reduce skills mismatch. We need to increase
our number of available workers to
fill jobs that support the growth of the Internet economy.
So train more for the jobs that are
being created and less for the ones that are disappeared.
Of course we need adequate social protection which is it
crucial to help workers transit
smoothly. This transition between jobs,
especially when they have been displaced. Labor market
regulations, we can talk more about that later and promoteing
workplace flexibility and, of course, the gender front is very
important in this transformation. Thank you very
much. (Applause)
>>MODERATOR: Thanks very much, Monica. You brought up a lot of really important points and on the jobs and wages aspect I
think this motion of equality jobs is
also something we’re seeing become
more and more important. So now we’re going to turn over
to our fellow coorganizer, Carlos
da Fonseca who is a career diplomat, having worked at the
Brazilian embassies in Washington as well as Santiago.
Carlos is the head of the information
division Attenborough Israeliian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
where he’s responsible for the international agenda related to
the digital economy and Internet governance and in that capacity
he represents Brazil on the OEDC,
and the G20. The floor is yours.
>>CARLOS DA FONSECA: Thank you for the invitation, it’s a it’s an honor
to be with you guys here. It’s an opportunity to give our
perspective from Brazil. Let me start my clock here. So I have two questions to
orientate my representation. I’m going to try to be didactic
not to lose myself. The first question is about the
dimensions, the three most important dimensions. I think
it’s very difficult to single out three dimensions, of course, . Digitalization impacts almost
every aspect of our daily lives today.
However, being from a developing country it’s wise to try to
emphasize or take into account aspects that matter in terms of
development. So in that sense, I would say
that maybe the first dimension is access itself to ICTs and use of
the ICTs in the sense that access to ICTs is sort of a
prerequisite to reaping the benefits of
digitalization. Access and use of ICTs still are
a huge problem in some developing
countries. Brazil is not an exception in
that matter. To give you an idea, a survey
carried out in 2016 showed that 21 million Brazilian households
still did not have fixed Internet
connectivity which corresponds to around 30% of homes and 4.5 million Brazilians still did not
have, in 2016-17, still did not have access to any kind of
connectivity at all. So we are talking
about 4. 5 million digitally excluded,
which is a huge number. Even when there is connectivity,
quality and cost are another
obstacle. In the case of Brazil,
connectivity cost at entry level for broadband services exceeds
in some cases by far the
affordability targets defined by the Broadband Commission for
Digital Commitment, 5% of the average monthly income. In some regions of the Amazon,
subscriptions may cost up to $150
or more a month. It’s huge. Another important aspect, I
think, has to do with digital skills and this is important because it
has to do with appropriation of Internet. What you do when you do have
access. The same survey I mentioned from 2016 showed that
24 million Brazilians did not use
the Internet because of the lack of knowledge or skills.
The situation was even worse when you consider only the aging population, the poorest or girls
and women. So it’s even worse. Those are probably the two most
pressing problems, I think, because they tend to accentuate
the disparities, not only among countries but also within a
country. You have regions with more
access and regions with less, etc, etc. This, in terms of
social and economic development, in
terms of the access to education, the
access to information, the access to job opportunities, the
access even to government services that
are provided digitally. So it’s a huge problem.
Maybe a third aspect worth mentioning the trust of
security. In Brazil in 2016, there were
265,000 service attacks. It’s a huge
number. 300,000 on average – in all
350,000 cyber security incidents were registered. 62 million people were the
victims of cyber crime. So it’s also a
huge problem for us. How to deal with those
challenges? So this is the second
question. I think that from are a
government perspective, digitization and a huge
challenge because it is particularly
difficult to deal with that in terms of the role of government
as both an enabler of
digitalization and a provider of services and
also an economic regulator. So the Government has three
different challenges to face.
So I believe the only way to deal with that effectively is through the development of comprehensive
digital transformation strategies. Take into account those that
have multiple dimensions involved and those strategies,
they must point to a sort of whole-of-government approach in
terms of the implementation of policies.
If you don’t have a whole of government and comprehensive
strategies it’s very difficult to deal with those different
challenges at the same time. That’s what we try to do in
Brazil. We recently, in March this year,
we approved the Brazilian digital
transformation strategy and this strategy is an attempt to
prepare the country to face those
challenges, to reap the benefits of
digitalization. The strategy was the outcome of
a year-long coordinated effort by the Ministery of Science and
Technology together with over 30 ministries and agencies. It was a huge work. The main
document was the result of more than six
months of daily work by a great
number of people. There was a two-month public consultation period which gather
over 700 contributions to our
strategy and basically what we have now is a strategy with seven main
priority areass, infrastructure,
development and innovation, confidence and security,
education and training, international
corporation, digitization of the economy
and digital citizenship. For each area the strategy
establishes a broad diagnosis of the situation
and of the challenges that we face and a set of strategic
goals for the next five years and a set of indicators for us to
measure how we are dealing with that.
I am just finishing. Once the strategy was approved, and this happened in March, a ministerial
committee was established with the participation of the
executive office of the President together with a number of
ministries and just I think it is worth mentioning, last but not least,
this strategy now is the object of
a review by the OECD. We commissioned to the OECD a
peer-review study on our strategy with a
focus on how to best implement this. The term of reference of this
review is based on the OECD integrated policy framework for
digital transformation. So now we
are really, really connected. Our strategy and going digital
is part of the same process. So
this is very good. Thank you very
much for the opportunity. >>MODERATOR: Thanks so much,
Carlos. (Applause)
>>MODERATOR: It’s really great to see the framework that we are
developing with the multi stakeholder model being put to
use in Brazil. I know it’s no small feat to get
all of those ministries together. We see that in the
secretariat trying to come to agreement on some difficult
issues from different policy perspectives isn’t always easy,
so congratulations for that. Also
hearing skills come up again as one of the three most important
issues, which is interesting. So now we’re going to move to
the civil society perspective. We have Claire Milne, who has long
combined her international
telecoms consultancy practice with pro bono collaboration on
consumer and civil society organizations. She’s worked
with the Civil Society Information
Advisory Council, since 2011. She’s also
a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics, having
worked on universal service on many
countries she’s now most interested in helping to shape new ICTs to
serve society. So Claire, the floor’s yours.
>>CLAIRE MILNE: Am I coming over? Yes, it sounds like it.
Thanks very much for the invitation and for the
opportunity, Molly, and the other organizers.
First, I’d like to say that I’m really happy that OECD has chosen its well-being report to discuss this IGF I know, of course, the OECD has
that E in its name for economics and it has to be concerned with
the details of economic policy and growth but at the end of the
day, what is economics for? Well, I
think most of us would say it is in order to facilitate human
well-being. So that’s what it’s all about
and that’s what the digital transformation is all
about as well. So I’m pleased to have the
opportunity to make my three choices of topic that I think are tops and
the first of them is actually what I would call work rather than
jobs, which both of the previous speakers have already alluded to
and I didn’t hear anything in what they said that I would
really disagree with so I’d like to add that I think we need to talk
in terms of work rather than jobs. We’ve already heard
there’s going to be home-based work, we
know there’s going to be a lot of freelancing, there’s going to be prosumption where the consumer
produces as well as consuming. There will be many forms of
work. We need to think what is work.
Work is not just a productive activity whereby people
contribute to the economy. It’s also a very important source, of
course, of income and there’s been a lot of discussion about social
support, possibly a universal basic
income for people who don’t find other sources. But it’s not, by
any means, primarily financial. People with work usually get a
lot of their life meaning out of that, they get their social
standing, they get their sense of
community, a sense of what they contribute to society and so on. And we really need to think
about not just how do we keep people busy during the day, how do we
keep them with a wage packet at the
end of the week but how do we make sure that these important
social and psychological needs are going to be met? I think
that’s a huge challenge and it’s lucky that we do have these ICTs
which, I believe, are going to be an important part of the
solution to this as well as creating part of the problem. My second choice would be
inclusion but I’m not going to talk about that because I’m happy, I
have any colleague here who is going to talk about inclusion so
access digital skills for everybody and so on.
My third is environment which nobody has mentioned yet but
this is an area where, as we all know,
the ICTs should be helping us to both dematerialize many of our
carbon-heavy operations and through the data that they provide help
us to fine tune our activities and
minimize our impact on the environment but at the same time
the resources they release can be
used in very environmentally unfriendly ways and although we
are working towards allowing people to have more
environmentally friendly choices, I think it’s
very clear that these are not choices that should be left to
the market, to individuals.
Policymakers, governments, must ensure
those options that are available are all as environmentally friendly as they possibly can
be. Carbon taxation is going to be
one very obvious element there. So when we make all our
individual choices, they add up to
something which is going to be positive for the environment through the digital
transformation. I have many more things to say
but I shall stop there and hand over to my colleague. (Applause)
>>MODERATOR: Thanks so much, Claire. So now we’ll pass over to Valaria Milanis. She’s a lawyer
as well as a researcher and speaker on privacy, data
protection, freedom of expression,
national and international conferences. She’s also, like
Clair, part of the CSAC steering
committee. The floor is yours. >> VALARIE: I will bring a
perspective from Latin America which is the area where we work most
and add in a bit more information
regarding, for example, what Carlos said, related an
inclusion that Claire also made references
that I will talk about that. I have to go like steps behind
and go to very basic, very basic
point when we talk about inclusion. That if we take, for
example, the last report from the from the Latin-American and war
Caribbean. 44% does not use Internet during 2017. I’m trying to find a way to make
these, like additional approach, given that their main topic here
is well-being, I’m not repeat
myself talking about issues, we talk in another forum when we discuss normative or kind of
infrastructure, or data protection
properly matters but if we combine all thing, because my
other two topics, not because I consider
the three most important but I have to choose three and I choose this topic of access,
ICT access and usage with this very basic point
that we have to take into account
which is not only access to the Internet but the quality of the
access to the Internet and I have to mention here zero rating
plans when we have to think on that when we’re thinking about
well-being at an individual and social level because of the repercussions that that has
socially. I have also chosen a sort of
civic engagement that is also related
with data. When I say data, I have to point something that I mark
every time I have the opportunity, which is the huge
asymmetry between the subject of the data,
the person that provides the data, and the one that is manage
the data because it’s not only the way that the data is
protected but it’s also the way the data is used and processed and this
sensation that I think that at some point it had to start to measure
and consider, the sensation of the people of being left behind
is something that they do not understand and they can do
nothing about that because it’s sometimes society has and it’s
our work. It’s so complex and that it has an impact, I think,
beyond the way that the protection laws are
implemented, beyond ethics, beyond
everything. We have to add that dimension
also. Related to data, because, and I
will end here, related to data we
have to think also in the new technologies that use the huge,
huge amounts of data that are also
impacting individually and socially which are the decision making
based on artificial intelligent and machine learning processes which
add also dimensions to that kind of asymmetry and feeling of the
people that not understand what has happened with them and what
are the processes Cha are what are the
processes decided for them. Thank you.
(Applause) >>MODERATOR: Thanks very much,
Valeria,for bringing up the important issue of data
protection and privacy. We know that’s an
absolute key quality to trust and to ensuring that digital
transformation is inclusive. So now I would like to invite Dr Makoto Yokozaw a,to come up. He’s from the Graduate School of
InfoMatics. He leads the strategy in Japan as the
chairperson of the data protection task
force. He’s also the vice chair of the
Internet economy working group and the Japanese business
federation. He also cochairs groups in APEC and the OECD and
he’s been involved, in Going
Digital from the beginning. The floor is yours.
>>MAKOTO YOKOZAWA: Thank you very much, Molly. That’s a very
long introduction, sorry about this. This time I’m from Business And Industry Committee to the OECD.
We are very, very happy to work with Molly and Fabrice and the OECD on not only to the Going
Digital project but many things in
digital process. To begin with, I will just say
the focal point in my speech, one is the scaleability and the
structure by design in well-being and Molly has made very good work in
the latest report for the Going Digital project from the OECD
and has a demographics of the structure of the Going Digital
policies and what we should think about, the well-being and going
digital. So I was inspired by that and I
will show something related to
that. That’s one thing. The second one is a new
generation of society in Japan, and maybe next near Japan G20 we will
speak about the society. 5.0, the
industry, 4.0, that’s industry. And thirdly, I would like to
highlight the trust. The trust is here. You see the word trust
here. So that’s again very important.
So let’s begin with the first one, the structure and the
scaleability. So if you can see the
characters, I am just talking about the smart life, smart
works and smart communities and then smart cities and the biggest one
is a smart society and the
society 5.0 by Japan’s proposal. In each scaleability, in each
scale we have to think many different things. For example,
the smart life and smart works, panelists have spoken about
education and skill development. So
that well reflects here. A smart office and smart house
and healthcare, Medicare and the
aging society. So we have to look
into that. The smart communities and
diversity and opportunity, which is also spoken by the previous speakers
and the structure design, is something the policymakers have
to look into that. The smarter cities, technology
and innovation and the bigger scale a smarter society should look
like the design and coordination and
across the border coordination the OECD has is expect to do
play a role.
This is a rough structure. Also we have to think about the many
structures like this. I won’t go into this, it’s too
much, but the product manufacturing,
communication, service solution layer, and content layers and
confidence layer which is trust, we have to think we have many, many issues
on the right-hand side. All of this is related to the
well-being by digital. So what is digital? We think
about that again . The digital technology can provide the
internal efficiency improvement or the mod ulization and outsourcing. The
manufacturing industry and also the globalization or
localization, a new solution or innovation.
So many things can be achieved by the digital technologies that
will lead to the well-being. So the society 5. 0, we have a long history from
the beginning of the human civilization. We have the Hunts Society,
Agrarian Society, Industry Society,
Information Society and next should be
the Super Smart Society. The Japan Business Federation is
thinking at the society 5. 0 with connection to the S3G
goals. If you are interested in, you
can visit this URL to see what is
the society 5. 0 and what is the Japan
businesses thinking about. And technology, a couple of
speakers have talked about the block
chain and AI but it’s not only that, it’s printers and smart battery for the voltaic cells
relate the to the sustainability, is
all related to the well-being. So I will be skipping this and
just showing this, some image of
what Japanese business is doing. This is a traffic on society and
the data analysis and many things. The interesting one is the – OK. So the trust, finally. So the privacy protection, personal
data protection is well considered in
many forums, including OECD. So OECD in 1980, OECD has the
privacy guideline. It’s a very famous one. It should be a very good example of what OECD can do
in the well-being process. We have the GDP in EU and the
privacy framework as well. So most based on the OECD privacy
guidelines in 1980 and that was amended
in 2013. So this – we would expect OECD
to play a role to showing the way forward like this. So that’s what I wanted to
emphasize. And the smart is many things so
we should think about the smart, what is smart? Thank you very
much. (Applause)>>MODERATOR: Thanks very much.
That’s the first time I’ve heard the society 5.0 and I will be
happy to be part of something super
smart so that’s exciting. Last but certainly not least, we
have Katie Watson, who is a policy adviser at the Internet
Society. She supports, develops and advocates for the Internet
Society’s Internet-related public
policy positions on access, on security and on privacy in North
America. So Katie, the floor’s yours. >> KATIE WATSON. Thank you
very much. I agree with the things
you’ve already said and you have touched on the things I was also
going to mention but as you all have mentioned as well, the
Internet is becoming more ubiquitous every day and the positive
impacts are huge, the opportunities are huge. But at
the same time there is this very
significant digital divide and as the
positive impacts grow for those who are connected, it widens the
gap in very meaningful ways, and especially as we move towards
the society 5.0, the areas that are
unconnected, not just from the Internet as we think of it as a
laptop or a phone, but from all of
the things that come with that, it’s going to have really
massive implications for those
communities. So you have to start with
access. It has to be the first thing
that you do is figure out which communities are unconnected, why
they’re unconnected and how they can get connected themselves
because it’s not the same solution everywhere you go. So
we need to be working very closely with
those communities to figure out what solutions work for them.
But then with that access comes the trust aspect, which a couple
of you talked ability as well because if you don’t trust the
Internet, if you don’t trust the devices that are included on the
Internet then you’re not going to use it. We’re seeing more
and more of that, especially in
North America right now, as relates to
security and privacy, and it seems to me, you know, five years ago
we reached this point where everyone said yes, you have to
have the Internet and if there was an
opportunity to get the Internet by and large people wanted it.
Now with so many privacy and security risks there’s a bit of
push back. I think to build trust in
the Internet and not only have access but people actively
engaging online, you have to focus on
all three of those things. The access, security and privacy
pieces. It’s all in our best interest to
say do that. Because it’s not until everyone is online that we
can benefit from what it could be.
In terms of what policymakers can do to facilitate that, it
comes down to something the Internet
Society has talked about for years,
the multi stakeholder model. When you work with experts from
a variety of feels and include
different viewpoints, you’re likely
to get innovative solution to these issues. It’s something
I’ve been lucky to see in my current
position. We work in Canada specifically right now we’re
work on IOT security and we’ve engaged this amazing group of
people from many different backgrounds including
government, tech sectors, private sector, public interest, academics, and
the kinds of solutions that they’ve come up with that they
could all be engaged in to actually make IOT more secure are really
impressive and not something any one group could do on their own.
So moving forward, I hope to see more projects like that.
Senegal and France have started their
own project that is are very similar
and hope they will continue to be used in other countries
because it really does have to be a
collaborative effort. We need to include more people at the table
to come up with the kind of solutions that will be necessary
as this technology evolves. I agree with what everyone has
said and looking forward to the conversation.
>>MODERATOR: Thanks so much, Katie. Now is the fun part.
We’re going to open it up and
hopefully have a good and lively discussion with you all. We’ve got Irvin here online.
Irvin, please feel free to come in to
the extent that you would like. Does anybody have any questions?
The lady in the back with the iPad . No, OK. Sir. >>AUDIENCE: I’m from India and
I like the presentation from Japan. I have worked with the
guidelines development group for digital health and let me
emphasize that if you really want to
achieve what we call the Internet of trust, we will need
evidence. One of the things we feel that
when we are looking at guidelines, you know, doing up regulations,
we always feel that there is not enough evidence that we can get
adoption or scale up. So I think this is a very
impactful forum, the Internet Governance Forum, and I think this should
take the role of collating all evidence which is scattered
across the globe. I think we have
what we call islands of excellence where we have
excellent projects delivered but we need
evidence. So I think I would come
down to say it’s a precondition to build trust so let’s validate
and document evidence so that people can use it to scale up
and adopt. Thank you.
>>MODERATOR: Thanks so much for that comment. Is there
anybody else in the audience that would
like to ask a question to one of the panelists based on the
presentations or bringing up another issue that you think is
important ? Sir . >>AUDIENCE: Hello. Edmond Chung from Data Asia. I
came in late but I caught half the
presentation on the opportunities and risk indices, I guess. I wanted to ask a question about
how, especially the risks partly is
defined and the reasons why is at
Data Asia we launched what we call a youth mobility index and
we’re looking at a bunch of indicators to think about what
youth digital mobility is and one of
the core aspects is to change a little bit the narrative that is
only about access and freedom online to digital mobility,
mobility to support youth development.
So I’m quite curious, I might have missed – you might have
already covered it but I’m quite curious
how you look at risk in terms of simply the cyber security
online, privacy or the risks for young
people unable to utilize the Internet, you know, and utilize
it in an open and, you know, mobile
manner in that sense. Not using mobile phones but able to
mobilize resources and people online.
>>MODERATOR: Thanks so much. Fabrice, would you like to
answer? >>FABRICE MURTIN: Very
quickly. The starting point is the OECD framework which highlights 11
keys of well-being – health, education, income, jobs,
environment, personal security and so on
and so forth. So the idea was to actually
review all the impacts of the digital
transformation. On each of those well-being
dimensions. For each of them we actually found, by
looking at the wide literature, both
opportunities and risk. Then we came up with 13
indicates or digital risk and we just
aggregated them together in order to
build a synthetic indicator of digital risk.
>>AUDIENCE: What are included in the risk ones? You mentioned 13, some examples?
>>FABRICE MURTIN: So there are plenty in the field of education. For instance, inequality in the
digital skills. In the field of employment you have the number
of jobs that are destroyed as well as negative effects on job
quality. In the field of environment
one has e-waste. In the field of governance, one has – in the
field of security, cyber bullying and the number of security incidents and so on and so forth .
>>CLAIRE MILNE: I wonder if I might add a quick point there.
I’m sure it’s pretty notable, that when you look at your blue
and yellow bars in those nice
charts, they are not strictlylyly
comesurable. You can’t assume because a bar
is the same length as a blue bar there’s any balance.
It will depend on what scale you’re looking at and every
individual has a different balance
between opportunities and risks and aggregating them at the national level conceals a lot of
that. >>FABRICE MURTIN: Quickly to
up on this, the dimensions are the
ranks for each indicator. In a sense this is comparable. However, we are completely
ignorant about the relative /SPORPBS
importance of the various indicators and
impacts. This is the job of
policymakers to highlight policies in terms of
intervention. >>AUDIENCE: Hi, my name is
Andrew bridges, I’m have /S*EUL Silicon
Valley. The motto of IGF this year is the Internet of trust.
I deeply admire the work of OECD,
its empirical objective, evidence-based approaches and I
very much like the categories in the well-being index, I think
they’re excellent. But it seems to
me that we are facing a fundamental crisis in the world
that is not an Internet crisis because
you think you could substitute any
number of variables for the word Internet in the blank of trust.
It would be the government of trust, the relationships of
trust, the media of trust, the legal
frameworks of trust. It seems to me that one
essential condition of well-being is the stability of expectation s and the confidence in the good
faith of others and that without
stability of expectations, as to something
being true or not, and of course many things are always subject
to revision, scientific knowledge
is subject to revision. Without some fundamental confidence in
stability of perspectives, in confidence in good faith of
others, I think we can’t begin building anything.
My question for you is looking at the various well-being
categories, where do we put that? Is that part of social
capital? Is that part of civic engagement
and governance? Is that part of social connections? Do we need a new criterion or
does this fit well within other criteria? Thank you.
>> I’m very glad that you raise that point. I’m responsible of the trust experiment run by the
OECD, which is called Trust Lab. So we run surveys about trust.
Trust in others and trust in institutions using experimental
methods. This being said, it’s true that
trust in digital technologies is not here properly reflected as
it should be and this is your point. So in the future we’re thinking
about broadening the scope of those trust surveys and trust
experiments in order to better reflect, understand what drives
trust in technologies and how can
we foster it, actually. So yes, you’re right, trust is
not yet here properly reflected. Trust is multidimensional. It’s
about trust in institutions which
relates to the governance field. It’s about trust in others which relates to social capital and
trust in technology relates to ICT
access and usage.>>AUDIENCE: My concern is I
would hate for us to focus just on
technology which, in my view, is a mirror of society. If we do not have trust in teachers,
trust in reporters, old-fashioned
paper newspapers, trusts in technology to me is sort of a
microcosm and can’t be abstracted from it, is my only
concern. >>MODERATOR: If I can just
come in here. We’ve been talking about the well-being frame work
that Fabrice is doing, I think a great job in moving the bar
forward on sort of measurement side, but we’re also developing at the
OECD what we call an integrated policy framework that Carlos
mentioned where we try to see what are the key building blocks for
making key transformation, not just for economy but also
society. One of those building blocks is
indeed trust and the idea is you do have metrics to the extent
you can and it’s the area where we are the furtherest behind, and
we know that. But also you have policy guidance that OECD has
developed over the years. We have
security guidelines, we have privacy guidelines, we are
protecting consumers in ecommerce and the
framework is trying to set out the
policy case for why trust is needed to try to give some
high-level principles on what that mean and
we work with the multi stakeholder model. We’re not
just focussing on our members in trying to develop this.
That’s another important aspect of the Going Digital project in
trying to foster trust because what trust means to someone from
China may be very different to what trust means to someone in
France or to the US. So every country is going to
have to, a little bit, take these
high-level principles and put them into
that you are own context. We can give some direction but
we can’t give this sort of recipe
for everybody on that. So thanks a lot for raising
that. Do we have any other questions from
the floor? Yes, ma’am. >>AUDIENCE: Hi, my name is
Catherine Ty. I have a question from
Dr Makoto. In your presentation you mentioned that smart city’s
next step is a society 5. 0 and we all know that smart
city is a worthwhile effort to better
public lives and well-being of human
in general. I’m just curious if there are
any potential risks to smart city because we all know that there
are some State actors who are providing assistance to some
nondemocratic regimes and that raises
concerns internationally. So if you can just comment on –
because we know the benefits of smart
cities, so the government can be more efficient, can better
provide services. So if you can just
comment on some potential risks. Then another question, if I may,
for the Valeria. You mentioned that there’s a symmetry between
a person who provides data and a person who manages the data. I thought a very interesting
comment/observation because there’s a power asymmetry,
that’s a capability asymmetry and in this day and age a lot of
corporations which also operate in
nondemocratic countries, you know, when they have these kind of a capacity to own their customers’ or
users’ data, what do they do with it in
the face of this asymmetry? So if you can just comment on
those. Thank you. >>MODERATOR: Thanks very much.
Maybe we’ll start with Makoto. >>MAKOTO YOKOZAWA: Thank you
for the very good question. Well, yes, smart city is one of our
invention to have the well-being with technology, I agree with
that. But it’s not limited to the
smart cities. The smart house, the smart
communities will have the same risk, a similar risk.
I would like to highlight someone has talked about –
already talked about trust and the
security and that’s one of the risks in
this smart cities as well. And adding to that, we might
have to take care of the intellectual
property, totally different things
that the protection of children online. So maybe many, many risks
that has the origin and the utilization. So we can can’t forecast at all so we
don’t know what will be the next step with the children
protection or the intellectual property
things. So we must think what is
important as the sharing the experience and knowledge about –
in the crosses-border co cross- border nation. We
might have to think of expanding the scale of the smart cities,
that’s one thing. I’m not quite sure if this is
quite answering to your second question. So as I mentioned, the OECD’s
1980s privacy guideline is a very good example but we
have two practical enforcement of
the guidelines. One is GDP which is based on
governmental regulation. And second one, on
the contrary. We have the APEC privacy framework which is based
on self-regulation, that’s totally different. So the basis
is the same. So maybe we have to think the balancing, which is
better in which occasion, OK? So it’s not 100 perfect for all
occasions but Japan has taken the middle between the GDP and the
creation approach. So the similar things would
happen in any risks in the smart cities or smart communities. Thank you.
>>MODERATOR: Thanks so much. Valeria. >> VALERIA: If I do not
understand properly your question, let me
know. Point of asymmetry is something that we try to
highlight because we understand that each
time that symmetry is making bigger and bigger and of course
it’s a question of balance. I would say that mainly, not only
from the State but also from private corporations because
sometimes private corporations are even stronger than some States.
At some point some States have not a word against private
corporation. For example, and I was listening
to my colleague here, cyber
relation is OK but it’s also something that generates
concerns at some points because maybe makes
the asymmetry bigger. I have not answers but I think
that given the people agency, do not forget data protection rules
are quite important. It’s
assured maybe not everybody understand and use the rights
the protection brings because our
experience in everyday work is that
people on an everyday basis does not properly understand what is
happening with the data. If they had to access to legal
stances, administrative instances, it can be quite discouraging to
be that. But that is our work but
also the work of everybody who is involved here to understand
properly what is behind that. If we are properly committed
with the human rights, human people,
people-centered rights, if we want
to put people at the center that should be the aim of the
understanding. Giving people agency and also
implement transparency rules, explainability rules, not only
when the problem happened but from the very beginning to make clear diagnosises to proper explain
why you are adopting this kind of
methodology of technology and it will be getting worse because
it’s a reality. In the context that I came and
that I explained these 56% of people using Internet in 2017,
which meant 44% of people not use Internet, we, in Latin America,
we are talking about smart cities,.
It’s pushing a strong agenda there on this smart city.
So I think we have to talk all the time and do not get tired of
talking about this and making the points because like we all
represent different interests, that’s true, but we have to find the commonalities from in the
diversity and keep on pushing that. I’m not sure if I answered your
question. >> KATE WATSONP : There are so many risks to the
data that’s being collected. What we’re seeing with smart
city devices, is the people interacting with these
devices often don’t realize they have been interacting with them
because they’re so ingrained in traditional dumb applications
like in streetlights or sensors in
the sidewalks and things like that. There’s some real
community benefits from those things but
there’s also a huge risk that if that data were to be leaked,
consumers would have no idea they
were included in any sort of risk.
One thing we found important moving forward in consumer
education applications, whether putting up
a sign or doing some sort of media campaign but starting with
the very basic point that these devices actually exist in your
community is huge.
>>MODERATOR: If there’s any more questions, maybe we take one
more and then I’m going to let the panelists have something to
say. Any other questions from the floor? Sir.
>>AUDIENCE: Thank you. Most of what you’ve been talking
about is really interesting, if I take
it from a government perspective. It gives great entry point for
governments to think about well-being and improve the
conditions. If I look at it from the
individual’s point of view, I foundless hints as to what can I do myself
to improve well-being in the digital age. Is there anything
you’re thinking about in this direction?
>>MODERATOR: Thanks for that. Is there anyone on the panel who wants to take a stab at that?
Makoto? >>MAKOTO YOKOZAWA: Again, it’s
a very good point and I would like to point the security
guidelines from the OECD were renewed
in 2014, if I remember correctly. The topics for the
business players, the biggest one is the
multi stakeholder and that says that the individuals are equally
responsible for the cyber security, OK? Before that, the service
providers for business or government or the critical infrastructure
operators, they are solely responsible
if the cyber security. But it has changed.
Of course we have to take care of the education or the
awareness development of the cyber
security but we can’t improve the cyber
security aspect without the collaboration of the
individuals, as you said. So this is a tremendous change
from the government, a top-down approach to the bottom-up
approach. So maybe some similar things we can see from all over the
world discussion. Thank you. >>MODERATOR: So I’m going to
give our great panel one more intervention, if they would so
wish. Monica, would you like to start off?
>>MONICA ASPE: Thank you very much. I will try to comment on
the discussion. One point is I believe it’s important to think
of the noncompetition among
different aspects of digitization. I have devoted most of my career
to access, to ICTs, but however, the discussion of access before
a quality of digitalization I
think we should rethink that and we do that a lot in developing
countries. Because for one thing, the
impacts are for everyone ask not just
the connected. Impacts on skills, impacts on
the job market, that effects everyone, connected or
not. So we need to think on both
sides access and equality of digitalization at the same time.
The other point is the quality of digitalization is also key to digital inclusions, it was
talked about in this panel the pushback because of security or privacy
risks so it affects access and
digital inclusion. A third related point, people
are exposed to this without even knowing. There is facial
recognition technologies and you’re just walking there ask you’re the
subject of this – or rather an object
of this digitalization. So we need to rethink the discussion
on access. Lastly, on the risks of smart
cities, I think in the discussions of smart cities a risk that the
cities in developed countries are applied to developing country
cities many times and they’re not
necessarily applicable. And I think that’s a big risk
because technology doesn’t always lead
to adding to development. In smart
cities, especially in developing country, we should always think of the public service driving
the digital policy and not the technology. When we don’t have the same
policies in place in public services
and we have a layer of technology, we don’t get the
same result in developing countries what you
can get in a more orderly cities in
terms of their delivery of public services. Thank you.
>>MODERATOR: Thanks so much, Monica. Is there anyone else on the panel ? >> I just wanted to refer to
two of the questions that was proposed for debate for us, we
didn’t have time to discuss that.
One is digital divides and the other one is the aspects are not
quantified. I think from the perspective of
developing countries, this digital divide issues is
hugely important. As I mentioned before, it has to do with dis
/PAR parities and between countries
and it’s very difficult to deal with
in terms of policy solutions because basically the range of dimensions of digital divide,
they are not excluded and they tend
to accumulate. If you are in a developing
country and you are a poor person living in an urban area, access
to ICTs is probably more difficult
than if you had money. But if you are a poor person living in
a rural area in a developing
country, it’s even more difficult and
then if you are a poor person in a rural area and it happens that
you are an old person, even more complex. And if you are a woman
probably even more complex. If you are from Indigenous descent,
etc, etc, etc. It goes on and on. It’s very difficult to deal
with that. Then what is the solution? Of
course policies, public policies, education, qualification, trying
to get more women, for instance, in the ICT sector. In the case of Brazil we only
have 20% of people working in the ICT sector
that are women. On the other hand, and going
back to this issue of quantifying,
one of the problems that we face in Brazil, but I think in other countries as well, is the lack
of data that is segregated by gender. This is a huge problem because
we have surveys, etc, but not always the data is
segregated by gender or race so it makes it
more difficult to pinpoint specific problems and figure out
policy solutions for those problems. There’s difficulties in
establishing our strategy. So I think this experience was very
important for us because not only we try
to figure out solutions but basically what we did as we
elaborated, the policy was really to have a very clear view of the
very different problems and the complexity of those problems.
So now we have a very clear picture
of the situation in our country. I think it’s some of the things
I wanted to mention.
>>FABRICE MURTIN: Thank you, Carlos, very much, for this
point. Can I mention the first follow
up to our report will actually consist in desegregating those
indicators by gender. I think it will be released in March .
>>CLAIRE MILNE: Thank you. I’d like to come back to the
question of what are our tools for measuring these developments and how things change and obviously the OECD
already benefits from from a lot of surveys, you go around
and ask people many questions. But there are tools that are
available to get more considered decisions and getting people to
face up to the trade-offs and these opportunities versus risks
and these are the tools of deliberative democracy which we
are beginning to see more of now. And I do feel that these can
play an immensely valuable part, not
just in helping policymakers to understand what a social balance might be for these trade-offs
but also helping to build the trust
which our colleague here has so rightly referred to. It’s trust in society and if people can
feel that their views are being taken into account, that must be
positive . >> VALERIA: We see from our
work that it could have an impact on this well-being aim that we are
trying to point here which is about surveillance. Nowadays, most – I won’t say
every country but most countries are using
surveillance technologies with a proper aim of pursue crime but
we also know and we have information that sometimes
surveillance is diminishing the free expression of people online and
that also has an impact on the civic engagement and the
possibility of making stronger States and
civil participation. So that is something that is happening and
we have to be aware of that. Thank you .
>>MAKOTO YOKOZAWA: I should be very brief and we have talked
about the trust and I would like to add trust by design or a well-being by design, work with
the OECD and all governments and also the multi stakeholder.
Thank you. >> KATE WATSON: I completely
agree with everything you all said.
I’m glad you mentioned the trust by design and that comes with
many different pieces and it applies in many different ways.
In my mind it’s not just the
devices that we use but every different
platform we use online as well should be secure, private and
trustworthy by design. But I’m also really glad we
brought the conversation back to access and you mentioned
Indigenous communities. A group of
people that have so often been forgotten in every possible
sector. So including them in this space
is hugely important and it’s not just making sure that outsider
looking in we help them get online
but consulting these communities and asking them do you want this
technology first of all because it’s your right to say no, and
then if you do want it how can we help you? As a community
what do you want to do? What role do
you want to play in your own connectivity? Do you want to
own these networks? Do you want to
own some sort of portal? What is it? I’m really glad to hear you
mention that because it has to be the next big focus for as a
community. >>MODERATOR: Thanks so much.
I’m not going to wrap up because we’re already over time. Thank
you so much to you and the audience and as well as to our
really distinguished panel. I think you’ve given us all a lot
of food for thought. I think Fabrice’s main message that
skills are the key to unlocking the
positives of digital transformation has been well
verified. I think we’ve got a bit of
homework on our side as we continue to
develop the ongoing digital work on well-being from a policy
side. Thanks to the panel and join me
in giving a round of applause. (Applause) >>MODERATOR: Thanks very much. WS #98. Who is in charge?
Accountability for algorithms on platforms.>>MODERATOR: Hello, everybody. Welcome too the Workshop number
98: Who is in charge? Accountability for algorithms on
platforms. My name is Gonzalo
Lopez-Barajas. I work for Telefónica so I am a business Representative, and let
me first introduce the panelists
who will be conducting this session. Here on my left I have Fanny
Hedvigi. She’s Access Now European Policy Manager based in Brussels and
she has a long-time focus in privacy where
she has worked before on the AU/US data
transfer. She participated in the fight against National data retention law in
Hungary and has promoted privacy in
technologies. She has a strong focus on artificial intelligence so that’s the
reason why she’s sharing this session with
us. Now to my right I have Phillip
Malloc, Vice President, head of group
policy, group public affairs at Telia Company. He’s also
Chairman of the Board of ETNO, the European Telecom
network operators Association who has more than 40 members and is based in
Brussels and represents basically all Telecom operators
in Europe. And we also have two panelists
which actually are joining us a little
bit later since they are coming from a different panel that is
not ended yet but they will join us in brief. They are Lorena Jaume-Palasi. She’s Founder of NGO algorithm
watch and has also now started a
project named ethical tech society. She has just participated on the
opening session, on the opening panel on emerging technologies
just early this morning, so where she had also a
great contribution around ethics of algorithms. And finally we also have Karen
really, the Managing Director of
tungsten lacks, building communication technology with
privacy by design. Peavy she managed cloud infrastructure in the private sector and work
on information security and
censorship for NGNOs. Now Chris Kristina Olausson who
has been coordinating this workshop will go through the workshop and explain
how we are going to be working on this
workshop 98. Please, Lorena.
>>KRISTINA OLAUSSON: Hi everyone I’m Kristina from ETNO,
one of the organisers of this session. Thank you for coming
here today. The set-up is a bit different
than a normal panel session. We would like to get you to
interact more with the speakers and also up moving so what we will do is we
will divide the audience, you, in two groups. One will be on
this side, so we’ll have to ask you to maybe get up from your seats and move a bit closer
to the speaker so you can all hear each other.
And the other group will be on this side so I would say we can
split somewhere here in the middle, and please
feel free to get up and go to one of the corners so you can
hear what the speakers say and you can interact with them.
I hope that’s fine for everyone. We will do that now for half an
hour. Then we’re going to come back, and the speakers will
bring back the messages from your discussions here to
the floor in a discussion with Gonzalo,
our Moderator, for 20 minutes. And I’m here if you have any
questions but for now, please go to the two sides of the room,
and we can start the breakout sessions. Thank you. [ Breakout sessions ] Fanny is now on the left side,
and ( ? ) on the other so please join
them and come closer because otherwise it will be hard to
have a discussion.>>GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS: For
those joining now, we are having two
groups to do a discussion, so please come
here to this side or to the other side to join the different
conversations. You can stay here on this side.
Sorry? No, no, they are the same
discussion. It will not be the same. We would like not to be
the same discussion, but I mean, they are addressing the same
topics, the same questions, so it will depend on the different
groups, but, yes, it’s the same discussions. [ Breakout discussion ]>>GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS: We
have time for one more question, intervention in each group, and after that,
we’ll reconvene and do the joint
session. [ Breakout discussion continues
you finish the intervention please we all come together here
are where the speakers will present a brief
summary on what their discussion has been about and then we’ll
have a chance to — okay, one more minute. [ Breakout discussion continues
]>>GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS: So … [ Off Microphone ] Thanks a lot for your
contribution to the breakout. So now we’ll give a minute for
the speakers to organize what they
are representing as the results of the summary of the different
breakouts. In the meantime, if you could
come a little bit closer or if you might want to move so that
we can have a lovely debate afterwards.
So basically now we will have the speakers doing a brief
summary, 5 minutes, presenting what was the discussion in the groups, and
afterwards, we will have lively debate among all of us to see how can
we move this forward, and what are the main messages, and of
course, those that have not been able to participate will have
the chance to participate, and so that we can have a more interactive
session session. . So we also have the online
Moderator, so we will be bringing questions
from WebEx from online participants, as well. And we will just give one more
minute for the speakers to organize
their summary, and then we will move
forward. So since Phillip had an easier
job because he was — well, maybe more difficult, but he has not to
agree with everyone on his intervention, we will let him
first to give a brief summary on the discussion on his breakout
session, and then we will go with the other group. So Phillip, when you are ready.
>>PHILLIP MALLOC: Hi everybody. Thank you very much.
We had a lively discussion over on our side of the table there. We
broke the topic down into its three respective areas which
came through in the questions so we had an
important opening session on kind of breaking down the
problem so what we’re trying to address hear when it comes to
the issue. So we firstly got to the point
of the question here, is for example
how can we make this human to human process that is the
creation of algorithms and the utilization of algorithms
something that’s really understandable for all those
people involved? We also touched a little bit
about on how can we reconcile
transparency with people’s intellectual property rights, as
well, in the commercial space as we go forward?
There’s also an important discussion which was very active
which I think crossed over all the discussions here, which is about, it’s very
interdependent in many instances. What is role of a
Government actor? What is the role of a private sector actor
and others? One notion we kept coming back
to as well time and time again was this notion of purpose, so in terms of what
is being done and also who is doing the algorithms for
example, what’s the purpose for that initial — the initiation of the process to
utilize an Al gism for example? I think we came back on the
transparency point as well. There was a very good point
raised on how do we really work with the level of abstraction
here? If you’re in incredibly transparent do you get to a
point where for the average citizen it becomes a completely
not understandable topic area? Yet if you go too far the other
way and you’re too vague does it necessarily have the given
impact that it’s meant to do? But having said that, we kind of
got to the point that some disclosure is better than
nothing and we really need to start somewhere. There was a very interesting
discussion raised by a few speakers here and we
extrapolated on a little bit where we talked about the
potential of some kind of moratorium so given
the purpose of what you would
potentially use AI for and algorithm is
there value on putting a moratorium on say war
situations, weapons or other situations where there’s
probably a relatively undenial human, strong human element, to
the necessity of a decision? But we’re not starting from a
blank slate either. I think everybody recognized that we do have existing principles from
the UN guiding principles on human
rights, and how are we going to then kind of extrapolate those
out when it comes to a future on AI and algorithms and
others? We also touch on the topic here
really, the court system could well be the system which is best placed to
act as an orby or as we move forward on
a case-by-case basis and the overall idea that there isn’t a
huge amount of value in rushing to creating very prescriptive
pieces of legislation, although there was some debate whether the
interplay between beconcentration in markets and
self-regulation lended itself to be a credible tool going forward
so this is where we saw the discussion about how businesses and also the
competition elements come into play here. So there’s also a big question
on jurisdiction, both geographical jurisdiction and
institutional jurisdiction if you do choose to move forward
here. So how and in what fora and on
what terms would you move to regulate in this area of AI and algorithms? We
heard that the European Commission for example has
already kickstarted some work in this area. The European Union
of course already has a quite significant tranches
of legislation when it comes from everything from Telecom
regulation and is that kind of formulation going forward. Other fora mentioned is the G7
for example the correct place to have these kinds of discussions?
I mean, I think I’d sum it up generally that one notion that
kept coming back on to the table was that trust
really is a parameter which all actors need
to value, and will value, whether that’s from a commercial
perspective or whether that’s from a Government perspective or
whether that’s from the perspective of those creating
AI and algorithms. But that’s not to say that there’s a free
license. There needs to be some level of oversight in how we get
to that. I think some people were quite
clear that they prefer a process of iteration, that we confront
challenges as they emerge, but this is not
something to say that problems aren’t very real and problems can be very strong when
it comes to algorithms making errors and otherwise some examples of
self-driving cars certainly doing that. So I’ll probably leave it there
as a summary. I’m sure there’s about 50 points I missed but I’m sure everybody
will be willing to put their hands up when the time comes for
discussion.>>GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS: Thank
you, Phillip. Now so we can know who will be
providing summary?>>All three of us.
[ Off Microphone ]>>GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS: I
don’t know, Lorena you want to go first?
>>LORENA JAUME-PALASI: Yes. We started with the idea of
expandability and what does it mean? It seems that we have different
ideas of what expandability would be. Some participants
were thinking about data, just understanding what type of data
has been used is good enough. There was also conversation
about well perhaps you might also want to know the parameters
on how they are being weighed in although that has a, of
course, a specific impact if you do that in a public level, if
the explanation is meant to be an explanation for everyone,
because of course, this means that you can game the system,
that you can learn different alternatives how to
fool the algorithms. And there was — the discussion
continued farther with, and I think we didn’t reach a common
agreement on that, but one of the many aspects that were mentioned as an explanation are
things that are less concentrated on
data, on the system, and more on the output of the system. So
does the system discriminate for which reasons? What are the
reasons for discrimination or classification? Which has a
more slightly social approach to the explanation of an algorithm
and it’s more concentrated on the social impact of algorithms.
And the conversation went back and forth on that and I think
this is a pretty good example to show that
explainability is important to understand, not only with
regards of what is an explanation but also with
regards to the addressee. To whom are we giving an
explanation and for which purpose is this explanation
being given? And with that I will pass over
to Karen that can put more insights into
it.>>KAREN REILLY: We also talked
about understanding the impact of the
output of especially large datasets,
where you may not gather sensitive data,
but you can infer things that become
sensitive data with a large enough
dataset, and so explainability should also encompass, what do
you end up with at the end? And this is something that not even the engineers maybe understand
at the outset, but the impacts can be
wide-reaching and they can be severe, especially if you bring in
intersections of health, race, gender,
economic status. There are real-world harms that
have already been done as a result of
data collected for seemingly
innocuous purposes like targeted
advertising.>>And finally I will report
back a little bit on the General Data Protection Regulation which
unsurprisingly came up in the conversation. But let me start
with thanking for all the participants to be open to
address the challenges of the set-up of the room, and I think
we had a quite good conversation despite that. So
it came up a lot how data protection regulation is
adequate or not to address some of these issues and we discussed the specificities of
the relatively new EU data protection regulation which you might be
familiar with and there’s not a lot of differences between the
former directive and the GDPR except for the
really, really huge fines and the whole enforcement piece but there’s
one big difference and that’s actually related to explainability and redress
against automated decisions, and it will pose a lot of challenges
when we look at the impact of artificial
intelligence and algorithms on human rights because the redress
mechanism which is to object to the decision is arguably only
accessible when the decision was fully automated, and we had a conversation about
how rare that is, that it’s actually fully automated. And that has also an
explainability limitation, I would say. So that was one
aspect. And finally, the other one was
how — what’s the difference between the personal data and deidentifiable
data itself that the law protects? And insights and
conclusions that a companies or the private sector, anyone, can draw from that dataset which
might not be protected by the law, and
how in the future, this could be a challenge for data protection authorities
to have proper even forcement
this is a kind of experiment. We see that we have some
diverging approaches in the different groups so let’s try to
focus the debate for example on explainability and transparency
which are issues that have been addressed by both groups. On the one side we had for
example if we wanted to have all the information that was used to
come out with the results, I recently read that in
a University, they did a case to
basically explain the results of the works
that were graded by different individuals so they did use an algorithm to
solve the bias of the different persons grading the works.
And basically at the end, they came out that when they were
giving full transparency on how this was
implemented, basically some of the students that did not get their
grade that they wanted, they did not really appreciate the
transparency of the process. So I don’t know, the question
here is: One of the issues that we were addressing is, who is the
transparency, who is the explainability going to be
addressed to? Who is that going to respond? And are we ready to deal with
the reasons or to deal with the response on why the algorithm has come up
with that result? Any views on this?
>>Well, I think that it’s important to differentiate
between transparency and explainability because an
explanation, it’s a different thing. An explanation is
reconstruction. It’s always a justification. Whereas transparency is — it
does not try to justify anything. And of
course, both when it comes to transparency and both to — it
comes to explanation, it’s always a subjective point. Who is giving transparency to
what? Which factors are being used to provide transparency?
To whom? Transparency to a developer is
nothing — it’s a different story than transparency to a
policy maker. It’s a different story to transparency to a user. And it always depends on the
purpose of transparency. You want to have an insight on what
specific factor of the technology. And of course,
you’re right, there’s this ambivalence in the
technology. All things AI, all things machine learning, are
very good at pattern recognition, so of course when
we human beings discriminate, we leave a
pattern in our behavior and without
technology you can have a better insight on the ways human beings
discriminate. So it’s a — there are two
dimensions to this technology. On the one side, you can amplify
your own bias by coding and by using data in such a way that
without noticing, you are using the technology to discriminate,
but on the other side you can use that technology to learn
more about the human nature and how
human beings discriminate to each other and this technology
might be very helpful to show you how subtle the way is
in which we human beings are biased
without noticing, even without wanting. And that is by the way a good
potential of this type of technology. From a monitoring
perspective having algorithms that look at things from an
architectural point of view and look how institutions behave towards
different types of gender, different types of culture, ethnicity, religious
believings and all this stuff, that can give a lot of insight
how the administration is going forward when it comes to
people that want access to Social Security or access to specific services and
the same goes for the private sector. So I think it’s important we
address there’s that ambivalence. That on the one side — well,
sorry, to recapitulate, I think we human beings because we are
doing that technology are just showing that we can create
bias and discrimination on many different levels and that might
show in technology but the technology might help us
understand back how we can learn from
ourselves and be more consistent and less
discriminatory.>>There’s one component we
haven’t really talked about which should
be the basis of the transparency
requirement especially in the public sector use. We didn’t
talk about transparency around contracting and public
procurement and just the most basic requirements to disclose
by Governments when they use an AI system, and
what companies they contracted for and how that was developed
and who manages it. For instance, there’s one
example which is really, really not well known
but the Hungarian Government maybe 6, 7 years ago started a
pilot project in Budapest in the capital city, in one
District, which is known to be populated
by a lot of rumor residents and they
started a facial recognition pilot project there and they put
the whole project under the operations of the National
secret service to avoid any transparency and access to information laws and
requirements that they would have to disclose.
So nobody knows what’s going on and what they use the
information for, but we have evidence that there’s a
discriminatory finding and sentencing practice on the basis of the perception of
someone being a Roma person in Hungary.>>I would say the issue of
transparency, you can have fully open source code, you can have
access to all the academic papers that led to the
algorithm, on a technical basis everything can be 100% free and
open but the more important data to assess the impact will come
from the communities that are impacted by
discrimination in AI. A community that is
disproportionately affected by predictive policing, the people
in those communities know what discrimination looks like and
they should be believed when they say: This is discrimination.
And the bad parts where they say okay, this contract is secret
for National Security purposes or something like that, and we
can’t show you the algorithms, we can’t show you any of these
things, you don’t even have to get into that. Just believe
people when they say bad things are happening as a result of
this technology.>>GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS: So it
seems that we have two different
approaches that was commented previously on that group. One
was related to the role of Government regarding
transparency, and also it was commented that maybe business
had a different role or different responsibility, and is
that because of the impact that they have on the society of what
they are doing? Is that — how could that be implemented?
And also it was mentioned before interactive properties so that
it could not be provided full transparency of the algorithms
because for businesses there was an intellectual property
associated with the algorithms so is the
role of Governments and businesses the same regarding
transparency? And what has intellectual
property to do with it?>>Just a quick comment before
— I would not underplay the role of private sector in human
rights violations and the impact on our life, so I’m not sure I
would differentiate between the responsibilities in that sense,
but of course, there’s an existing
human rights framework globally and regionally that’s applicable
to state actors, but there’s also the UN guiding principle
which is applicable to the private sector, so the respect
and the protection and promotion of human rights in my view
should be equally applicable to all
actors.>>I think it’s important from a
legal perspective to make a difference between private
sector and public sector, right? Because of a good
Democratic reason for that, that’s right. But of course when we talk about
accountability, accountability is many cultures, not a legal
concept. It’s an economic — it’s a private sector concept by
the way. And there’s a huge difference
between what the U.S. means legally when they talk about
accountability and what is meant in Europe when we talk about
accountability. There’s the very first time ever enshrined
this concept in law with the GDPR and it’s a problematic
concept because from an ethical perspective accountability makes
a lot of sense but from a legal perspective, making sure that proving that you have not
done something wrong in advance is a weird way to proceed
legally. So I think we need to be clear
when we talk about accountability, whether we are talking about it from an
ethical perspective or from a legal perspective, and be also
clear that accountability means in many different legal cultures
different things. Now, going back to the concept
from an ethical perspective, I think
that I’ll depends very much on the context. You cannot say as
a general rule company have less stakes, less higher stakes, than
Governments. If we take a look at Facebook
and how Facebook operated in Myanmar and Bangladesh with the Rohinga it
was a problematic situation where a company was helping Government to
operate in such a way that we had a
genocide, and it’s not, I wouldn’t say that it’s an easy
situation to decide because if you’re a company there operating
in a country that is an autocracy and
you need to decide, do I keep
providing the system? Do I need to abide by the law of the
country? Or if I do not, by which law do
I abide, or which type of ethics do I abide?
And how do I operate in such a way that is both legal, but also
legitimate? It’s not an easy issue and I
want — I wouldn’t say that companies are
per se devils that only want profit. That’s not true. And I
don’t believe that. I see a lot of companies that have lots of
engineers and people working there that want to just shape
and operate with the future. But I think that it’s important
to have an ethical conversation about that. I think that when we talk to —
when we talk with companies about what do we mean with
accountability, but also what do we want from you as a company
to be accountable for, companies are still thinking that they
want to have the ethical feedback from society. And
that’s good. That’s important. But a company should also create
their own ethical profiles, their own
virtue ethics and say we’re a company that has decided to have
this specific ethical profile. This is our understanding from
ethics and they also have to come up to this conversation
because ethics is a whole societal conversation and it’s
not only Civil Society that should be having the
conversation but also the companies within there. This
also means to show your inner virtues as a company or show
your inner ethical principles. And I think I haven’t seen many
companies saying that. I see many companies that say:
Oh, we do this partnership with Facebook and Google and so on,
and pledge to follow the human rights. But that is a simple
commitment. That is not an explanation of who you are as a
company and what are the values you stand for.>>PHILLIP MALLOC: That’s an
excellent point. Hopefully it shows the commitment of private
sector and business that we put forward this topic to be
discussed today and arrange these types of debates around
this topic so it’s equally a pressing a topic and I degree
that a multi-stakeholder environment of these debates is
absolutely pressing for both business and all stakeholders.
I just point to a couple of examples of ETNO members who published
publicly their own take on some of these ethical standards, so Telefónica to my
left very recently published their
guidelines or principles towards AI, as well. Another ETNO member Deutsche
Telekom published last week for example a document which is now
open for public scrutiny. So I think that you probably
will find — the European Commission for example who’s
gathered its expert group on AI also I think involves a rather
broad cross-section of both
stakeholders from Civil Society, Government, business and
otherwise. So I think there is work going on there.
Is it perfect? Probably not. Is it work in progress? Absolutely.>>Just to build on that because
impart of the experts group for the European Commission, just to
be clear, it’s around 6, 7% Civil Society more
than 60 business, and the rest is academia so it’s definitely
not a proportionate representation of stakeholders,
and I agree that there’s a role for ethics frameworks, and I’m
not questioning that, but I think we have to be very careful, because there’s also a
tendency to develop these principles to avoid compliance,
and there are existing human rights frameworks that should
and can be applied in the first place, and then on top of that,
there can and should come the ethics and principles.
Just one example for that Google published its AI principles and
it has an interesting Section on red
lines, when AI should not be developed and deployed, and one human rights implication they mentioned is
it’s a red line when the intention is to harm human
rights, but they don’t mention that should be a red line when the
impact is violating human rights.
>>GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS: An intervention?
>>Thank you. My name is Charlotte from the
Council of Europe. I wanted to just point in this context to an niche at the Council of
Europe to develop through work an interthe
disciplinary Committee which is public, private companies and
Civil Society independent experts really to develop
recommendations to Member States on how to address the human
rights impact from the deployment of algorithmic
systems and to do that through two
different lines of work really. One is to make very clear what
the obligations of Member States are. What do they need to
demand? And what do they need to ensure in order to comply
with their own human rights obligations when it comes to safety and security from
algorithmic decisions, when it comes to data quality when it
tums to transparency and accountability, also when it
comes to effective remedies and then at the same time also to
make very clear what standards private companies and private actors engage in the design,
deployment development of algorithmic systems what they
should do. And the purpose very much is to go beyond ethics. Ethics are wonderful and
important to promote trust but maybe at this point we do not
just need trust. We also need trustworthiness. We need people
to actually be able to rely. We need perhaps more audittability,
more clear standards also in terms of a company so they
understand what they should do and what also through what type
of innovation can be incentivized to address inequality in a way
such as Lorena mentioned, rather than reinforcing inequality, et
cetera. So this is an initiative that is
ongoing. It’s longer term activity, and
we are hoping to adopt recommendations
in early 2020, I’m afraid. So we’re working on this now. We
will have public consultations over the summer. We want this to be a very open
process. And we will then have
politically binding at least standards for Member States and
for companies. Thank you.>>GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS: We
could try to see if there is any
intervention from online participation? No? Okay. So since ethics is not enough
and maybe recommendations are need, maybe this goes to another
— could go another Section about regulation. So is regulation needed? Talk
of regulation on two sides. Here you mentioned GDPR. Here
you mentioned competition law. Maybe you could elaborate more
on how this regulation could be applied
to the algorithms, or what you’re referring to exactly.
>>PHILLIP MALLOC: I’ll do my best but I’d encourage people
who were part of our discussion who are far more qualified than
I am to intervene at this point. I think the point we got to was
that ultimately, responsibility is responsibility, and the choice
of technology you use to fulfill an
action, be that through AI or others, there is still a human
element to the initiation of a process. And so I think that leads to
some level of accountability
hopefully. One thing I would personally point to on
regulation, and we have many people from the Brussels fora here from
discussions, the only issue you have with regulation is it tends to
be painfully slow, and that’s why I
enjoyed one of the points made here about working in an
iterative way, if we can. And so I think there’s some
value in exploring as much as this
technology is going to revolutionize society around
us, hopefully it gives us a little bit of a free reign and a
scope to try to interpret ways in which to manage a policy
process which is slightly more innovative than the one we’ve
had for a very long time. What that looks like in its entirety, I’m not exactly sure, but
hopefully we can think a little bit more laterally and so we don’t kind of stamp on
a nascent technology too early.
>>LORENA JAUME-PALASI: First I just wanted to say I think it’s
sometimes painfully slow and sometimes it’s painfully fast.
For instance the European Commission right now is
considering a law on terrorist content regulation and
that’s going to be passed before the elections because there’s a
political impetus to pass it and whenever they don’t
want, then it’s of course it’s painfully slow. But on regulation, I already
talked about this report to this part of the room but I want to
mention Access Now published a comparative report on all the
tempt U Member States’ proposals and strategies that are already
publicly available, and some of the
regulatory ones from Regional bodies and
one interesting overarching theme
in all of them is that it’s too soon to
regulate AI as a whole. At the same time, all of them
acknowledge that we have existing legislative frameworks that are
applicable to artificial intelligence and the very
interesting thing is when we mentioned this to the European
Commission that we’re doing this scoping and mapping exercise,
they got extremely excited, because
they had that they don’t have that overview what all the
Member States are doing, which I think is quite interesting. And what Access Now is arguing
for is a human rights based approach instead of an
ethics-based approach for all the Member States, and we understand
that there might not be a need for an AI regulation on the
European level but there’s definitely a need for a
harmonized approach to do it, to avoid the patch work, a patch
work of regulations and different types of exceptions and roles and
sandboxing and I would be really curious to
hear where Spain is at in the process.>>PHILLIP MALLOC: Just one
quick point that fits into this conversation. It seems like we
jumped down a very European path which I think is often the case,
we do in general. One of the points we raised in this
discussion is how do you create some kind of global international
context and comparability across the Board and which fora do you
choose for that essentially? Is it this fora or some other G7
or whatever? What does that look like to make sure it isn’t
a kind of global patch work.>>LORENA JAUME-PALASI: I’m a
bit — I’m a bit always concerned about the concept of
harmonization because it sounds so good, harmonization, but in the very end, what we have is
some sort of legal text that is common to
— and it’s always, like, minimal common denominator.
It’s not the maximum that you get, it’s always the minimal
common denominator in the first place but second you have a
legal text does not imply you’ll have the same legal
interpretation of the text and we see that already within the
European Union, with 27 memberships, and very
different interpretations from Spain to going over Germany,
until Hungary. That’s the first thing, so I’m
sort of cautious, because sometimes, I think it’s good and
it’s important to acknowledge the legal culture and the political expectations of
specific legal culture all around the world. And one of the things that we
never discuss — we discuss always the U.S. hegemony over the export of
technology but we’re not discussing the European Union hegemony or legal experts. We are exporting and enshrining
our law to other regions of the world that are very interested
in having commercial exchange, and therefore are bending their
own legal cultures and tradition to just have equity in order to
be able to cooperate economically with the European
Union, and that is not right either. So I’m concerned about this type
of approaches. I like the approach of the Council of
Europe because it’s open to many other countries from other continents,
and it’s a possibility to enter a conversation, and it gives —
but still it always gives you a minimal
common denominator and I think it’s good to have a variety of
law, to have just a form to accommodate the different
cultural expectations about law. But what I think — I totally
agree with Access Now, is that right now, there’s many, many
issues with this technology which we don’t know exactly what
the real conflicts are. We don’t know how far this
technology is creating path dependency in
human behavior. We don’t know that. We don’t know much about
the factors in technology that lead human beings to believe in
the software or not believe. We don’t know under which
circumstances specific forms of discrimination are happening. And in many legal cultures which
are very individualistic but from
the law point of view democracies are really
individualistic. They only understand individuals. They go
by individuals rights approach. They are having legal struggles
that they are addressing in my opinion wrongly. Why? Because
this technology is not about individuals. This technology is
about collectives. It’s about creating infrastructure. And with that, we are seeing
already many effects on a collective
level where we see that specific types of collectives are being
treated differently than other collectives but no individual
harm, so there’s no way to redress that and there’s no way
to prove an individual level and to sense an individual level
that there is a specific impact on individuals’ life that is not
legitimate. So this type of challenges are
one of the things where democracies from the Western countries can learn a
lot about countries from other regions
that are less individualistic and have more societal approach,
more collective approach, to society. And this is one of the
things that I would like to see addressed in this type of fora
where we learn from others, where we, Westerners, learn from
other societies, what is their take and how do they apply these
technologies? What is their fairness idea at
that collectivistic level? What is their collective rights
approach? This has been a whole conversation on collective
rights coming from the global south, being always addressed at
the UN level. At the UN level has always been very cautious on
trying to address that issue because we thought that with him
human rights, it’s enough but this technology is showing that
no, it’s not enough.>>GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS: Okay,
so we have time for a final intervention for all the speakers so you can make
it brief. So we could have Fanny, for
example? Okay. Karen, please?>>KAREN REILLY: So whatever
regulations come into play, and this has been touched on by the
other speakers, the things I would like to see
are consultations from the people affected. If you are making medical
technologies, if you’re doing medical research on a given
population, people with a specific disorder, you should
ask them where they can be
discriminated against. How has data collected about them being used in the past
currently? Because there may be some ongoing harms. If you’re using a system such as
central link in Australia, robo debt,
there are also systems being used to deny benefits to single
parents, to people with disabilities, and they have
resulted in people going without insulin and dying. They’ve
resulted in suicides, because of people losing benefits. Then
in that case, the regulation should be swift. The program
should be stopped. Once people start dying, the program should
be stopped. That should be regulated somehow.
And when it comes to people from other countries, the fact that Silicon
Valley companies like Facebook are debating, should we hold ourselves
accountable for facilitating genocides, should tell us all that Silicon Valley should
not be the arbiter of social good with technology. They
failed. They need to step back and listen. And so whatever regulations come
into play, one founding principle
should be: Nothing about us without us. That people making
decisions about technology, the people coding the technology,
should look like and think like the people being affected.>>FANNY HIDVEGI: I would make
two final conclusions, one of them is absolutely not new but we almost
had no technology experts in the room,
at least ours, and it’s really not a new
demand to have lawyers, policymakers,
affected communities and tech, tech people, in the same room
but I think that this specific conversation really needs them
to be involved. That’s one. The second is, to connect to
what you just said, I think lots of the
tech companies are complaining now that all the policymakers
and lawmakers are looking at them to solve all the
issues, but for the last 10 years or
even more, they’ve been feeding that line
to all these how makers that technology will solve it all, so now we see how
the failures happened, and I think we need to act swiftly to stop those
failures and violations. And finally, even if it’s not
enough as a starting point, at the moment
for AI, it would already be a really huge gain if we had a basic understanding
of human rights based approach for AI, that it must be respected and there
should not be a question for any stakeholders.>>PHILLIP MALLOC: Yeah, I’m
not going to discuss the wheres and where
fors about moralistic things, because I’m not as well placed as the speakers
but I’d try to bring the point that
there’s an enormous amount of potential in
solving some of the big questions out there from a
global context. If you look across the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the
increasing use of technological innovation and digitalization
lies as a key enabler for all the solutions put out there.
It’s not to undermine the fact there is significant questions
but I think it’s also pertinent for us to bear in mind that the
opportunities out there are also incredibly great and if we don’t
embrace those opportunities we may be doing ourselves somewhat of a
disservice.>>GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS: Okay.
We are coming to an end, just to wrap up, basically we have been
discussing on transparency and explainability which are
different issues. We also commented on the role of
Governments and businesses relating to human rights, which
both of them being affected and being part of the
equation. Regarding regulation, we
mentioned that it is too early to regulate, so
that we do not hamper innovation, but at
the same time, we have seen that in
any mechanism that starts discussing
the regulation or cultural ethics
has to imply and to count with the
persons being affected by it. And to finalize I would just
like to end with a positive note on all the possibilities that
artificial intelligence algorithms are bringing us.
Thank you very much for your attendance, and thank you for
all the speakers. [ End of session ] .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. 6:47. Iring.

Danny Hutson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *