Agreeing on the Messages for Focus Area 3 – FA 03 2022

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

22 June 2022 | 17:30 - 18:00 CEST | FabLab / Fibonacci | Video recording | Transcript
Consolidated programme 2022 overview / Day 2

Messages from Trieste

Messages are compiled from each Focus Area and form the main output of the annual EuroDIG. The messages are presented to the global Internet Governance Forum that is convened by the United Nations with a view to contributing to global, other regional and national debates on Internet governance. Find the messages from 2021 as a reference here.

To agree in consent on the Messages we foresee 30 min at the end of each day for each Focus Area.

Reporters from the Geneva Internet Platform will be assigned to take notes and to formulate the messages for each Focus Area that:

  • relate to the particular session and to European Internet governance policy
  • are forward looking and propose goals and activities that can be initiated after EuroDIG (recommendations)
  • are in rough consensus with the audience

These Messages are finalised after the event by the Org Teams on our Commenting Platform.

We strongly suggest all session organisers and Focal Points to participate in the process of agreeing on the messages, because this delivers the outcome of their work. Session organisers are free to make a summary in addition.

Video record


Provided by: Caption First, Inc., P.O. Box 3066, Monument, CO 80132, Phone: +001-719-482-9835,

This text, document, or file is based on live transcription. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), captioning, and/or live transcription are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. This text, document, or file is not to be distributed or used in any way that may violate copyright law.

>> The Moderator has arrived. I will give the floor to Jack.

>> Okay. Hello, everyone. Hello, Marco, once again. I hope you were – you had a good night’s rest after yesterday’s discussion where we were really aptly discussing your excellent proposals and adding here and there a touch of paint.

And here we are back for the next focal points. So I think without further ado I will leave the floor to you, Marco, after having said hello to everybody else. Maybe not yet the full drill, but the idea is that we consolidate the single points in to – from the various sessions in to just a short set of pointed messages, which have been drafted so far. So I leave the floor to our colleague in Geneva I understand.

>> MARCO LOTTI: Thank you. Thank you very much. As you rightly said the idea about this moment is to find a minimum common denominator about the messages that my colleagues have prepared by looking at summaries and reports from today’s sessions. We can directly jump to the first message. Today we will have four messages. Part of the sessions were extremely technical. So some of these messages are reflecting that. But let’s look at the first one.

I will read it out slowly. And then see if there are any objections from people in situ or online. The interconnected nature of the Internet and the need for resilience favors a multi-stakeholder approach when discussing the problems of the Internet. However, the current geopolitical tensions may challenge multi-stakeholderism. There is a need to resist this tendency and a fresh look on the multi-stakeholder approach may come from the youth voices that are still underrepresented in the Internet Governance debates.

Are there any comments? I see that Klaus has switched on his microphone. Is it because of a request for the floor?

>> Yes. I have a slight problem with the fact that we don’t question multi-stakeholderism itself. And I think we should at least mention the limitations that multi-stakeholderism isn’t a last solution.

And I think it was very clear also in the presentation that it was – that it is basically the – basically the current state of art. But that’s not the end point.

There needs to be change and there needs to be things. My problem is that we don’t do multi-stakeholderism, good service by not at least questioning how can it be improved and how can it be done better because there is something multi-stakeholderism as people also in the – look as long history it came in to our times again. And we need to show somehow it needs to progress. That it has limits. That’s the only comment I would like to make.

>> MARCO LOTTI: Well pointed out. I think because I had a brief discussion with my colleagues, they told me about these issues that came up also in the sessions. The way they wrote the message is that’s why they put a fresh look on a multi-stakeholder approach but if it is too diplomatic.

>> If you can manage to say something positive. Something positive. We have which we can make better. Or develop in to something new. And I think that was – that came out of the youth messages. That was an important part of the youth message. We have something new. We can now bring in and you old farts shut up. And I think that’s part of my comment in that sense.

>> MARCO LOTTI: I will then add maybe a few – two, three, four words around fresh look on multi-stakeholder because this word “fresh” points what you said. I will make it more explicit. And if other – also other people who are present today agree.

>> Yeah. This is Lori. If you don’t mind, I should have raised my hand. I apologize but yeah, I have a – I agree with, Klaus. I think there is probably room here for a little more questioning of, you know, is the multi-stakeholder model as we refer to it the right multi-stakeholder model. Is there one meaning even more multi-stakeholder. That came out in the discussions as well. There is multi-stakeholderism and we see it now and then what it could be.

>> The other thing just from a grammatical viewpoint, I might rephrase the first question a little bit. And just say the Internet, connecting nature of the Internet and the need for resilience favors a multi-stakeholder approach, I would say when identifying the problems and discussing the solutions. Because it is not just about discussing problems but it is about identifying solutions. I want to see that become part of the message because that’s only half the equation.

>> MARCO LOTTI: Well noted.

>> And my other comment is I don’t know if I would say the current geopolitical tensions. I might just say geopolitical tensions. There is always geopolitical tensions. What you might say the current escalation of the geopolitical tensions. I would say however – however, geopolitical tensions may challenge or however, the current escalation of geopolitical tensions. I think the formulation right now is not as precise as it could be.

>> MARCO LOTTI: Very well pointed out. So I will remove current. I will also add next to this – or however, geopolitical or escalation of current geopolitical tensions. And I see a hand raised from in situ. Yes.

>> If you take out current, then we have a problem with dynamics with fresh look later on. We are either describing some process or some overall situation. And the other message – and the other point is replying to the first speaker with a well put need for resilient favors a multi-stakeholder approach. That in my view already has in itself there are alternatives. So it is not – as I read it, I admit that I haven’t been present. But having a fresh look on it, I deduct that there are different approaches and the multi-stakeholder approach is one of them.

>> MARCO LOTTI: Thank you for this comment. That’s why I made the first reaction at the beginning. That’s the reason behind this precise wording, the fresh look to suggest that it has to be revisited. Otherwise we wouldn’t have put it that way. My question was if it is – if you all agree that it is too implicit, it has to be – make it – it has to be made even clearer, then we can do so according to the comments that have been raised by the other two participants.

Yes. Lori.

>> Marco, so I don’t know your name in the FabLab in person. But your point is well noted. And it changes the direction of the message in the following sentence. Maybe we don’t need to say there is a need to resist this tendency. There has always been a need to resist the tendency of flatly opposing views when comes to governance, however we decide to resolve the however, a fresh look approach may come from these voices. I guess what I’m saying is the need to resist the tendency, I’m not sure what the tendency is. Is the tendency that we let geopolitical tensions disrupt multi-stakeholderism? Or it the tendency to politicalize multi-stakeholder – I’m not sure what the tendency that we are trying to resist.

>> MARCO LOTTI: Yeah, I see the ambiguity there. And what if, and others agree as well, we leave out tendency and we say there is a need to take a fresh look on the multi-stakeholder approach or especially considering youth voices that are underrepresented, would that clarify it more?

>> For me that would clarify it more. Tendency, I didn’t get it. And I thought by changing the previous, maybe I would be helping. But I think maybe taking it out is what’s needed.

>> Okay. Now I take the hit of why I’m here. I am co-Chair of the Swiss IGF. And I have been asked by EuroDIG to just represent and just bring some cohesion in the overall process of reporting. And just one remark, it is absolutely okay to have the messages that are current today, and may not be for eternity. So this is the thing about the messages. So we are talking about developments as they are happening. And the messages may well reflect this. Just – it would be okay if you agree on it, to have current political. That next year may no longer be true in the messages.

>> What I would say is the current geopolitical tensions are challenging, if they are. We know there has been issues at ICANN with letters from different constituencies asking to pull names out of the root. We have already seen that happen. I know in my own organization I have seen correspondence as well with one particular group from one arena is not comfortable being on a Working Group with another group from a particular arena. This is happening.

So maybe it is not may. Maybe it is challenging multi-stakeholderism. And there is a need to resist this. And it is time to take a fresh look. Then it makes sense, if we think that’s what’s happening.

>> MARCO LOTTI: Okay. So is it fine then we leave current but we make it more direct as Lori was suggesting, current geopolitical tensions are challenging multi-stakeholderism? And then the second part, there is the need to take a fresher look on the multi-stakeholder approach, especially looking at the youth voices. Do we have rough Consensus?

>> Yes, I would agree to that. I wouldn’t even say escalating. They are still escalating. I would say the current escalating.

>> Just to be more confusion, you could say that the current geopolitical problems just add to the existing challenging.

>> MARCO LOTTI: We could also add that. Okay. I understand that there is rough Consensus on this message. As I mentioned yesterday and probably at the beginning of this discussion time, you will also have the possibility of commenting further on the edited version of these messages after the conference is over. So I will send you the updated version. And you will still have the possibility to comment on it further through the EuroDIG platform.

Shall we move to the second message, which is a bit more technical and longer than this one? After agreeing on global principles and values to guide AI development, such as trustworthiness, transparency and human-centered AI, there is a need to let regions and countries adapt these principles to their own realities through concrete documents, for example, toolboxes, targeted at policymakers and other actors. In this process cross-regional dialogue is needed to ensure harmonization. Potential risks related to AI need to be examined in a holistic manner. Humans need to be in command. There is a need for oversight by independent and certified AI auditors, who could enhance trust and assist with compliance. Independent auditors could also help to balance the need to protect Intellectual Property while also enhancing transparency. They could assess the respect for the public interest without the need to disclose valuable business information more widely.

There is a lot of meat in this message. And I see – do I see a hand from FabLab? Yes.

>> As a participant this morning I can especially comment. It looks for me a little bit too much meat on the bone. Changing hat for messages, it should be shorter. It is not – it is too much. Switching hats again, I say to the content, it also looks a little bit like a commercial for certified and independent AI auditors as if Ernst & Young had a pen. We need to make sure it doesn’t look like a business model.

>> I would like to fully, fully support that. And I would even warn against mentioning independent auditors at all. Independent auditors applies to a certain political structure. It applies a certain economical structure. It implies so much that there is – you can say there is a proposal of independent auditors on the table. But you should not validate it or promote it or overstate it in any way. That’s what I think – that yes, it made a very good point. And he sold his organization very well. And as a CEO he should be congratulated. In the context of EuroDIG this as a message is fully not appropriate.

>> MARCO LOTTI: Lori has raised a hand.

>> Yes, I would say these are two bullets. There is the first bullet and it stops after in command. And then there is a second bullet, which would go along crosses, thought if we even think it is appropriate for EuroDIG. I think we could have a second bullet. This is not one bullet. That’s my first point.

And the second point, a proposed solution or a solution that was discussed is this, it needs more discussion or something like that for the second bullet. It was proposed or it has – it has been proposed that there is a need for independent oversight, period.

Not certified AI auditors. For independent oversight. And perhaps independent auditors could help balance the need. I don’t know why we are talking about balancing the need, I love the statement. I’m an Intellectual Property Attorney. But – I feel like there is three thoughts here. There is this is what AI should be. It should be harmonized to the extent it can be. We need somebody who knows what they are doing to oversee compliance and talk about opening AI to data. We need to seek solutions for Intellectual Property. Not share too much if we don’t have. But I see three completely different thoughts in this one sentence. And I think can be three bullets if it is allowed. I wouldn’t put it as one.

>> MARCO LOTTI: I fully hear what you are saying, and after the first two comments I was thinking along what you expressed. Each session had three messages. They would be referred specifically to the topic that was discussed. This year with focus areas you have to put a little bit together AI governance and multi-stakeholderism and other issues. To come back to the message before I give the floor to Klaus my main point would be do we want to mention this independent oversight. One second, yeah. This independent oversight point? Because if that is the most controversial, and I understood what you have said, we could just finish this message at command. Knowing that we have four messages, we are the second one. We have the other two which are the maximum. And it would not be possible to split them in bullet points.

>> I would say I think it is reasonable to discussing the oversight of independent and so on. The problem is these are EuroDIG messages. These are not reports or summaries of the meeting. And nobody ever talked about the oversight – independent oversight as a message of the EuroDIG. I would go with your point, stopping it at command and making two bullet points for those two sentences.

>> I’m standing again, it means the official part. And actually we should have one bullet point. So this is what was just said before. The new thing that we have this year, we want to really condense messages. So if something is not clearly and needs to be discussed because it took much time, then it should be left out. And in particular, one short bullet point becomes suddenly more weight than a longer, because it is easily read.

So this means just either have just the first part or well, which everything in to one sentence. And my advice would be to take out everything about AI.

>> I think if you – thank you for doing that. You are helping me to be brave and saying that maybe the whole message in this process, cross-regional dialogue to ensure harmonization, potential risk related to AI needs to be examined in a holistic manner. And humans need to be in command, that’s the message and no more. These two sentences.

>> Yes.

>> Because okay, it is nothing new. But it strengthens existing messages.

>> MARCO LOTTI: Perfectly understood. So I will leave out all the part from command onwards. So that point will not even be mentioned.

And I see that we are – we have again rough Consensus about this. Can we move to the third message, which is again a bit long? This one is more specifically on digital identities. Digital identity solutions need to be measured not only by their usefulness and functionality but more importantly which – how they respect and reflect the fundamental Human Rights and common responsibilities. Any digital identity solution needs to be technology agnostic as that will ensure a greater likelihood of global interoperability and favor greater user adoption. In order to ensure a checked and balanced management of digital identity systems different bodies and authorities need to be involved in overseeing the deployment of digital identity technologies. Moreover there is a need to create platforms of dialogue among the different parties, concerned, law enforcement authorities and regulators and private sector so as to facilitate compliance with existing regulations when resources are lacking.

This is quite a rich message. Maybe we can distinguish two parts; one on deployment of technologies and more on compliance with Human Rights. And one at the end of the message, there is discussing more about multi-stakeholderism. So you have national authorities which should also engage in discussion with private companies and regulators to help each other comply.

Are there any strong reactions to this?

>> Yes. I feel like this is three bullets again. Yeah. I would end it – I would end it the first bullet ends at after responsibilities. The second bullet ends at adoption. And I think the last one might stand on its own, because they talk about different bodies and authorities. That seems to be all the same. It seems to be three messages again.

>> Am I allowed to shoot myself in to the foot? Of course, I love the first sentence. That’s my sentence. That’s what I have preached. In accordance to Lori, wouldn’t it be possible to put the Human Rights and the technology agnostic in to one sentence somehow? And that would help it. The middle part in order to check that’s not a more – not so much important. But if you are looking for the message, that’s the last sentence. And that should be the main point.

I think somehow we can get – we can get that – everything before the moreover. Yes. It should be mentioned, but it should be in a much shorter form or concise form, but the moreover thing should stay as it is in my opinion.


>> And thank you for including Human Rights, fundamental Human Rights. Thank you.

>> MARCO LOTTI: Okay. Any reactions from the FabLab?

>> Yes. For the process, unfortunately we cannot have several bullet points out of it. It must be one. Also think whether the last sentence is – and this is totally contrary towards what was just said, the last sentence striking out together because this is more or less one buzz word which is multilateralism. So what would one expect from EuroDIG. But so it is either needs to be in at all costs or can be left out totally.

Up to you to decide.

>> Which phrase? I’m sorry?

>> Last one, moreover there is a need to create platforms.

>> Yes.

(Talking at the same time).

>> Isn’t there the assumption that it is happening or we don’t assume that? I’m with you. I think that presupposes multi-stakeholderism.

>> MARCO LOTTI: If I can quickly react on that. Since we are reading all the messages of the same focus area, the first message that we discussed a few minutes ago it was on multi-stakeholderism. I know it is not exactly what is touched upon here. But it may be also repetitive to have two messages about multi-stakeholderism.

>> Right. So we can strike the moreover because I think the first two thoughts are the most important, that Human Rights and technology-agnostic.

>> I take back what I said before, back as I see your point.

>> MARCO LOTTI: No, no. The problem there are too many messages coming out from each session. It is to make them clear. As it was said before, we should pick one or two. From what I’m understanding we can keep the first two sentences from the start, digital identity until greater user adoption. So we have the Human Rights element. We have the technology agnostic element. And we make it more coherent be it in one sentence or the wording. But it is more on the statistics and the rest we leave out.

>> Ensure greater likelihood, do we need likelihood in there?

>> MARCO LOTTI: It is fine by me. Okay. So we leave out likelihood as well. Perfect.

Okay. Then we can move to the last one, which is again even more technical. It is about Delay Tolerant Networks. Delay Tolerant Networks, DTNs, will help expand networking in the interplanetary space for the benefit of the whole of humanity. These Networks will serve for human and robotic missions in the space and exploration of deep space. It’s possible applications will include lunar communication, Mars Internetworking and earth observation missions. We would need to discuss rules and regulations around DTNs, network security policies and governance models. We need to find a way to enable DTN evolution toward a large, open and inclusive system which would maintain flexible allowance for innovation. We should not repeat the steps from the Internet, but should indeed look at the multi-stakeholder model as the effective model. This message is on DTNs and space.


>> It is possible application, I think that that whole sentence is superfluous. And we would need to discuss rules around that we should discuss, the multi-stakeholder sentence should be out. Maybe, I know it sounds very, very simplistic but maybe the whole message is just the first two sentences.

>> Yeah. This is Samo. I would suggest – the first thing I would like to add is maybe to add terrestrial because you mention only space. So –


>> I’m a little bit frightened that people don’t understand DTNs.

>> Yes.

>> Is there any very short way to explain what it is? What it does?

>> See how we use it for our session description. We should maybe add Delay Tolerant Networks and talk about interplanetary network. It is a building block of interplanetary Internet.

>> To be quite honest and with all due respect, and I listened to your sentence, I know what you are talking about. People who don’t know what you are talking about, they are thinking what did they drink in the last session. We have to be more explaining to the normal audience what’s going on here because otherwise I think people just simply won’t take it serious.

>> MARCO LOTTI: Uh-huh.

>> So I was only on the end of that session. And I’m actually now just looking it up myself because I don’t know what it is. And I’m a fairly well read Internet poll person. But this is not something I have encountered in the discussions that I have been part of. I suspect it will be a big part of the EuroDIG audience. We do a brief description and make that one sentence and saying hey, this is what it is. It is important and let’s put this on the radar. Put it on the – put it on the agenda. This should be part of the agenda.

>> From the organizing side, I think we need to make sure that the EuroDIG is already something. If we start and just regulating the outer galaxy, then it just loses a little bit of credibility. So I’m fully with the idea that at least we should raise the flag and say wait a minute, there are boundaries that we need to explore. And it is not just Internet. It goes beyond and the details afterwards. They are probably just one, too far, too early. And so phrase it in a way that basically the message should be there is more than just Internet.

And we should start preparing. This should be the overall message. How it is phrased is a different thing. It can have four lines or five lines. But not to give too much detail to how it should be done. The message should be that it should be done.

>> Yes, I agree. Maybe we start by – just to explain a bit more, we say that extension of Internet in to the space requires maybe new types of protocol. And in order to keep them open we would need to have – we would choose a multi-stakeholder model. There is an issue with the governance. It is a huge potential for terrestrial application. I wanted to bring it to the EuroDIG.

>> Absolute valid point.

>> So also – also it is very old technology because I will demonstrate to you in the next ten seconds how to do space and time travel.

>> Yes, he is teleporting. Give me a kiss.


>> Just happens that we are husband and wife.

>> Okay.

>> If we come back to the theory, I think what you – the point you just said I think as a message would be much more appropriate than what we have at the moment because we have – what we wanted to do with the session was to standardize people to the problematic and – based on what is – there is a little bit of a report from the session but not a message.

>> Yeah.

>> MARCO LOTTI: Okay. If I understood and along the lines of what you just said, this part, these comments are mainly about the second part of the message, which is about risk of regulations of these new technologies. The need for new protocols and possibility of using the multi-stakeholder model to keep this open. And this would be the second part of the message. The first part is a bit technical. And it aims at explaining what DTNs are but it doesn’t do it. We have three options. The third one, which probably we are not in favor of it, we can also delete the message all together. We don’t need four messages. We can have three like we did yesterday. If this is a new topic and we want this to be flagged coming out of this EuroDIG and we just keep it and I understand the idea. There is more than just the Internet. There are new applications and new technologies that go beyond the Internet itself for – that could be useful for terrestrial applications and also outer space. Something general around these lines.

I know that I’m not using the correct wording, but I will do a little bit of research. And then we reward the second part of the message along the lines of what was said, that the extension of the Internet to the space, request new protocols and in order to keep them open, that is similar to the multi-stakeholder model.

>> I would keep as multi-stakeholder model completely out of it.

>> MARCO LOTTI: This I understood. Okay. Because again I have – yeah. But I feel like – I was not in session but I know that the participants in situ was at that session. I also understand out of this session this was one of the main messages. The point is do we want this as a general message coming out of EuroDIG or just leave it as a session message. I understand that Klaus wants to leave it out. I’m asking other participants.

>> Maybe, I think it wouldn’t be bad for the whole EuroDIG to show that we are thinking also a little bit ahead. But not too much in details. Then it becomes nerdy. For me lunar communication is way too complicated. And we have rough Consensus that we will strike it out. I’m not against having multi-stakeholderism in it right now because it is just very shortly. Maybe even put it or in the first sentence or something like that and that – and the new rules will require a multi-stakeholder approach, full stop. And then we can get rid of almost everything of the second part.

>> Okay.

>> And we should hurry up.

>> MARCO LOTTI: Yes, it is the last message. And I took good notes of what you said. It is a good compromise among the comments that we heard. No objections from my side. I don’t see any other objections nor online or in situ.

So we can hurry up and close it here. This was the last message. Anyways, I want to thank you again very much for your patience and assistance in codrafting these messages, the final versions of them. As I said you will also have the chance to comment on that on the EuroDIG platform.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you very much.

>> MARCO LOTTI: Thank you. Enjoy the evening. And bye-bye.

>> And this concludes the session of the day and concludes the end of the conference. I wish everyone online a very good evening, and hope to see you next year. Bye-bye.