Digital Cooperation – Report of the UN High level panel (PART I and II) – Q&A 2019

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

19 June 2019 | 16:00-16:30 | KING WILLEM-ALEXANDER AUDITORIUM | Video recording | Transcription
20 June 2019 | 9:00-9:30 | KING WILLEM-ALEXANDER AUDITORIUM | Video recording | Transcription
20 June 2019 | starting 15:45 | AMAZON
Consolidated programme 2019 overview

Digital Cooperation – Report of the UN High level panel

The UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation submitted its report The Age of Digital Interdependence on Monday 10 June 2019. EuroDIG will be the first opportunity for a face to face discussion on the findings of the report.

Background

In July 2018, UN Secretary-General António Guterres established the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation. Co-chaired by Melinda Gates and Jack Ma, the Panel consisted of 22 international experts from government, the private sector, academia, the technical community and civil society. Its goal was to identify good examples and propose modalities for working cooperatively across sectors, disciplines and borders to address challenges in the digital age. On 10 June, the Panel submitted the report to the UN Secretary General. You find the report and further information on https://www.un.org/en/digital-cooperation-panel/.

Collating European views on the Report of the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation

The IGF, EuroDIG and other relevant platforms for inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue have laid important ground for the work of the Panel and play a key role in discussing digital cooperation and governance. At its preparatory meeting in January 2019, the EuroDIG community decided to provide for a space to discuss and assess the HLP report and collate views from all stakeholders from all over Europe on the report and its recommendations.

Get ready to contribute!

The EuroDIG meeting in The Hague on 19 and 20 June 2019 will be a first occasion to physically discuss the findings of the report. In addition, EuroDIG is offering an online space where European stakeholders can express their views via two complementary ways: you can either comment on specific paragraphs of the report on the commenting platform and/or you can send a more holistic assessment of the report and its findings by sending a comment or feedback document in PDF format to the EuroDIG secretariat via email on the following address: digitalcooperation@eurodig.org.

The deadline for comments is the 30 September 2019. EuroDIG will then summarise the views received in a single document and make them available to the global public for further discussion at the UN Internet Governance Forum in Berlin in November or at any other occasion.

It is important to note that EuroDIG sees this process as one opportunity to trigger a debate and exchange on the findings of the Panel and does not intend to consider itself as the only platform to discuss views on and possible follow-up actions to the findings of the report. EuroDIG welcomes other initiatives that provide for a space to discuss and assess the Panel’s report and invites all European stakeholders to also participate in these.

Transcript I

19 June 2019 | 16:00-16:30 | KING WILLEM-ALEXANDER AUDITORIUM


Provided by: Caption First, Inc., P.O. Box 3066, Monument, CO 80132, Phone: +001-800-825-5234, www.captionfirst.com


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.


>> HOST: Good afternoon. We're about to start. Can I ask you to come as much as possible in front and in the middle? Because it is nice for the panel, for the speakers that you're not so far away. Last panel it worked very well. Everybody came, was very polite to sit in the middle over here. Thank you, you can sit in front. Perfect. Thank you very much.

Because it is a very big auditorium, and when everybody is spread, you don't know where to look at, and we miss you. Thank you.

I like it when people listen. Ha-ha. No, it's just being polite, I think.

Wait maybe one more minute for everybody to sit down. And also for the newcomers, we're going ... downstairs, please come over here in the middle.

It is nice for the host and moderators to get a little closer. Thank you.

Yes, please, as much as possible in the middle. Thank you very much.

Everything is set, everything is arranged. I think we can start with the next panel. And I really -- not panel, I think it is very important, the report of the U.N. high-level panel. I have to look. I'm very sorry. I would like to invite you to the stage. And lead us through the panel and the report.

[Applause]

>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon. It is great to be here today at EuroDIG. I would like to thank EuroDIG Secretariat, our friends and colleagues from Netherlands for hosting this year EuroDIG. I would like to thank all of you for finding the time to join today's session. And also for contributing substantively to discussion we had over the last nine months on the high-level panel on digital cooperation. I would like also to convey the message from the U.N. Secretary-General, Mr. Guterres, and his team, the message that the panel itself and the follow-up, which we will discuss later on today, is guided by inclusiveness, multistakeholder approach, open and frank dialogue on the issues we have been facing in digital community, worldwide. The plan for today is to first provide basic information about the panel. I know that most of you have participated in some of our sessions, therefore, I apologize for repeating the facts that you already know.

And then we will go through the panel -- major recommendation of the panel and start unpacking them. The main idea to set the stage for discussion in EuroDIG community about the ways and means of how EuroDIG community can help in the follow-up consultations and implementation of the major recommendation from the panel's work.

We're particularly honored that Commissioner Gabriel mention the panel and quite a few occasion in the keynote this morning. It is important that European Union and all stakeholder are take notice and interest in the panel's recommendation and overall work.

As you can see from this photo, although you cannot depict personality and backgrounds of people who were participating in the panel, you know some of them, like some over there, and Shadi [sp]. And one of the characteristics of the panel, according to U.N., it was one of the most diverse in the history of the United Nations. I can tell you as a person co-leading the Secretariat, it was an enormously demanding task, but also rewarding task. And when somebody tells you that diversity is, by itself, will bring substantive discussion, be cautious about it. Diversity is a great asset, a great base for discussion but it requires a lot of efforts. To reduce lost in translation and not necessarily lost in translation among different languages, or cultures, national cultures, but I would say more to create a smooth conversation between different professional cultures. It was one of the major, major challenge in our work. And it was also enriching element.

Now, for those of you from Internet governance community -- and I can see quite a few colleagues that participated in various working groups, commissions, working group on Internet governance, you will probably find some common points about which we have been discussing in the past. But what has been important aspect of the panel work within the panel itself, in particular with the communities outside was the need to socialize some core concepts, understanding about meaning of the -- some keywords that are quite common in the EuroDIG or Internet Governance communities.

Therefore, today, we'll unpack the recommendation of the panel, especially those recommendations of direct elements of Internet Governance. Usually, the problem starts with definitions. One good thing is we didn't try to find exact definition of digital cooperation. Otherwise, as you know from diplomatic processes, it could have taken not nine months, but nine years, I guess.

We understand digital cooperation is a way to working together to address the societal, ethic, legal, economic impacts of digital technology in order to maximize benefits of society and minimize harm. You can see the interplay between opportunity and risk, more or less dynamics you can find on any speech delivered today on digital issues.

Here is the photo from the beginning of panel's work. My friends told me I put on weight. This is the way I deal with stress. I will have time for the relaxing summer after the closing of the work of the panel. Now, what is important to stress here are the few points. The Secretary-General establish the panel, guided by frequent calls, calls which have the call in the name. Like crash church call. Like from media, Governments, other communities to provide the space for discussion on the current digital developments and in particular, future digital developments.

In our discussion and consultation process, you have a few photos from that consultation process -- we recognized early in the panel's work, we cannot boil the ocean. There are so many issues. More than 40 or 50 digital policy issues. Each issue, is Cybersecurity, blockchain, artificial intelligence, you can list others, fake news, e-commerce has its own dynamics, with many meetings with the community meetings, expert, writing declaration. We realize we cannot cover in depth all of the issues. Therefore, what we decided to focus is on is to answer the question how. How digital cooperation should be conducted, and reflecting on the question what, to the extent to explain how. This is some sort of formula that guided our discussion.

Secretary-General established the panel and the main mandate formally of the panel was to advise him on the question of digital cooperation. We submitted the report last Monday, in New York, 10th of June. This report is now in the hands of Secretary-General, but also what Secretary-General clearly indicated, it is report for the wider community.

Since we will discuss later on during this session and tomorrow, what are the practical steps to implement this report, you can start already thinking about the ways and means your organizations, your Governments, and you individually can take part in the implementation of the recommendation of this report.

The panel itself was not supposed to conduct comprehensive consultations, it is expert panel and typically speaking expert panels are inward looking. They gather, they basically consult internally, and then produce report.

This panel was different. I'm sure that you participated in some of the online or in situ consultations and we basically consulted communities from Silicon Valley to Shenzhen consulting Governments, we had quite intensive consultation in Africa, in developing countries. We approached some communities which are not typically involved in digital policy space, like science fiction writers. We asked them to provide some views. Online gamers, people who are dealing with elderly. What we tried to extend typical IG or technical community by engaging other actors.

One of the legacies of the panel's work, it is expected that the post panel consultations will have the same level of interaction and involvement. In addition to report, which we will comment in a few minutes, one of the major achievement was to introduce this inclusive and multistakeholder approach as a modus operandi and realize colleagues from Member States and United Nations about new approaches when it comes to consultations and involvement in digital policy.

You know I am coming into the governance community, and I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised by the openness of both Member States and U.N. system in trying to approach -- it wasn't negotiation, but policymaking in different way. Therefore, there were some very encouraging signs in this respect.

You have here some statistics about number of stakeholder who we consulted in the process. Both from Member States, regions, and stakeholder communities.

Now I will quickly go through the main elements from the report. And provide since you have had the chance to consult report, and I won't read report again for you, I will try to provide annotated comments to give you context in which those issues have been discussed and what is basically the repertoire, the spirit in which the report was drafted.

There are few paragraphs that we labeled digital interdependence. The main purpose of this was in a way to semiofficially, within our mandate, put end to the previous declaration, which argued for digital independence. Which was issued in 1996 by John Barlow. Later on, he regretted his strong views that digital space should be completely independent from the rest of society.

But our message was to indicate and strengthen this aspect of digital space, that it makes us more interdependent, on all levels from individuals to companies to society, self-Governments, and that element of digital interdependence have been underlying message throughout the report. Interdependence is a good basis for developing substantive engagement, but interdependence as we note from history of the mankind, humanity can lead both towards conflict and cooperation. Therefore, that was one of the major messages. Yes, we have digital interdependent society, but it doesn't mean that it will work for the advantage of humanity without creating certain approaches, certain structure, which we'll harvest and harness in the part of digital interdependence.

The second underlying theme was leaving no one behind. Here you will see the linkage with the sustainable development goals and the agenda 2030. You will discuss more later on. You have here the full points, including digital economy, how we work and learn in the digital field, how to build capacity and economic policy and regulation.

The third major chapter was on digital society and technology, with three major blocks. And chapter one is human rights and second is trust, stability and security. And the last one, which is the most direct interest for you here is on the global digital cooperation.

Let me just unpack the terminology. Or clarify terminology. Cooperation was used as umbrella concept. And for those of you who are in the governance process, you can see that within this concept, there are quite a few references to the governance, per se.

And we will discuss later on how we went through the discussion and negotiation on this governance aspect. Leaving no one behind is the first part. And here, we sort of corrected unofficially, one missing part in sustainable development goals. As you know, agenda 2030, Sustainable Development goals have very few references to digital technology, in the -- as the G9C and few additions or something with online learning. Therefore, the panel's recommendations advised that by 2030, which is also framework for Sustainable Development goals, all adults should have full access to digital networks, digital health, and digital finance.

Therefore, it is informally speaking -- don't quote me officially -- but it is informally, one can say 18 digital goal. There is a need to have digital issues stronger presented in this field.

Second point which raised a lot of -- I would say sometimes heated debate and different views is the digital public goods and data commons. I can already see an interesting discussion here on this issue. Digital equality for woman and marginalized group, general question of inclusion.

One aspect which raised a lot of positive interest was the question of measuring data and digital world. And we came to the more or less common understanding that we have very little solid data on digital developments worldwide. And that very often, we discuss digital policy and Internet governance without sufficient data or impact of data in particular on society. Therefore, there is recommendation to move forward on the matter, especially on the question of inclusion.

And the last point is to establish digital policy held desks on the regional and global levels. And this proposal address the concern of many stakeholders, especially from small and developing countries that basically cannot find easily entry point in digital policy discussions.

And here, the idea on that, we can elaborate more, I'm just going quickly, more less 10,000 feet, we can focus on specific issues through your question, was to create a digital policy help desk.

On the second set of issue on human rights and human agency, there is a call for Secretary-General to conduct review how human rights apply to digital technology. Good news is that Governments are already taking some similar initiative in the U.N. Human Rights Council, there is an initiative by South Korea, Denmark, Austria, and I think Brazil to review human rights, the impact of digital technology on human rights horizontally throughout all specific human rights covered by Human Rights Council. Moving, in a way, beyond privacy protection and freedom of expression, which are two main human rights covered by Human Rights Council, but moving in the question of disabilities, question of gender equality, and other human rights.

The second point in this recommendations is that it is related to artificial intelligence and requests for accountability of humans for autonomous intelligence system. You can see the recommendation itself is more elaborate, includes question of transparency and includes principle decision about life and death, should be ultimately -- should not be taken by autonomous intelligence systems or artificial intelligence.

Then there is a recommendation which basically invite more comprehensive inclusion of social media companies on societies worldwide. Three sets, review, artificial intelligence, and impact of social media, in particular social media companies on societies worldwide.

The third set of issues is on trust security and stability. As you may imagine, it was quite the delicate area to discuss, because of the current processes that are ongoing in the U.N. system. You know that there is United Nations Government group of experts, open-ended group, two processes that follow up on previous UNGG, what is the acronym.

Therefore, we suggested multistakeholder global commitment on trust and security online. As you will see in the recommendation, it is quite general, and it basically should, if there is a need, supplement work of the UNGG, an open-ended group, if there is a need. If that need is recognized in particular by Member States, but ultimately, if there is any discussion on global commitment, it should be multistakeholder in it formal outcome.

The last point, and we're coming closer to home, if I can say to issues, which are of most direct concern for us here, for the Internet governance community, is on mechanism from global digital cooperation. Thanks to inputs -- I see quite a few colleagues in the room, I see, we pushed this by avoiding discussion on the end product, what should be architecture, but we started first from values and principles the digital cooperation should support. And here, we had relatively easy task, because you had the set from net, U.N. charter, U.N. Declaration on Human Rights, and provide U.N. values and principles, with values and principles developed for Internet community for last three or four decades.

That set the stage for discussion. And we hope that discussion will continue in the context of the global commitment for digital cooperation, which will be one of the follow-up activities to the panel conclusions. Discussion of global commitment for digital cooperation will be conducted in the preparation for the 75 celebration -- celebration of 75 years of the United Nations.

Next year, U.N. will celebrate 75th birthday. And one of the ideas is that there will be once more discussion on the revisiting and having commitment of all stakeholders around the core values and principles in digital cooperation. Now, after we establish that, we then - analyze the gaps in the current digital cooperation or digital governance framework. We identify few gaps. One is lack of metrics, and then identify gap of lack of participation from small and developing countries. Lack of leadership and you can see in the report, what were those gaps that exist currently. And then we propose the functions that should address those gaps, leadership function, cooperation function, capacity building, evidence-based, and the other functions. And last step, we suggested three forms that should perform those functions. We're fortunate that this year, we'll have IGF in Berlin and hundred years of movement in the arts, which is one of the basically underlying messages that form should follow the function.

Our aim was also that in this build up from values, gaps, functions, forms, we can provide the building blocks for the discussion that Secretary-General will initiate with the communities worldwide. Without unnecessary closure, because we were group of 22 experts. We consulted communities worldwide. But this issue is such importance for Member States, business, technical community, it requires broader consultation.

In that build up, we came to the three architecture, three forms for digital cooperation. One is Internet Governance Forum plus. Second is distributed cogovernance architecture, and third one is digital commons architecture. And based on your question and interest, we can go into more details. But IGF plus essentially builds on current mandate of the IGF. And address some of those gaps. There was also requirement to have multistakeholder or multidisciplinary approach to the policy worldwide. That would be more or less all in this 10,000 feet survey, what we did, how we approach the digital cooperation.

Now, I would be guided by your questions. We can focus on any questions related to the report, panel's work. I think that we will have some update -- I don't know if Thomas is here, about the possible follow-up in EuroDIG community. The Secretary-General is now discussing with the Ways and Means how global consultations will be conducted ahead of us. But there will be consultation over the next six to 10 months, Internet Governance Forum Berlin will be important event especially on the discussion of IGF plus and other elements and then have a buildup for the U.N. General Assembly which will celebrate 75 years, and there will be discussion most likely on the global commitment on that context.

How are we going to proceed? Thomas, would you like to say a few words on EuroDIG dynamics, and then we can open the space for discussion. I'm in your hand.

>> HOST: Thank you, Jovan. Thank you very much. I would like to invite Thomas Schneider from Swiss Governmental States to explain more about tomorrow. Then we have a follow-up session where you can ask questions. Thomas.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Hello, everybody. Actually, time is basically already up, but we have time now for one question, but as you have seen in the latest version of the program, tomorrow morning, starting at 9:00, there will be a session on the report, it's called part 2, where we will briefly, very briefly explain the EuroDIG process, the platform to make comments. But I think we should also use it or in particular use it to discuss -- use the fact we're all here to discuss the report and have a substantive debate on the report already. So it will not just be an explanation about how the consultation process at the EuroDIG office works, but actually it should be a substantive debate. That's the plan.

Thank you, Jovan. We have time for one, maximum two questions.

>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: The most difficult will be asked first. Khalid, please.

>> QUESTION: I will go easy. Khalid Fatel, Emilai Group [sp]. Jovan, excellent briefing, it is important for us to have these questions. It is not a question to you. It is actually a challenge that I see and I'm going to put it to you to see how we address it. Because I personally believe this requires a far greater conversation, far greater debate on the following: We all -- many of us who have been in the space since late 90s and WSIS from 2001 onwards, who witnessed the birth of IGF recall it was designed to be a nondecision-making process. Conversation.

But the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his announcement of the report on the digital cooperation stated a few keywords, which I think we need to address very, very diligently and create that conversation. He stated that smart regulation are now in order. I'm paraphrasing, the words, for anybody that wants to address this. I posted an Article on circle ID on this matter. I think we need to ask ourself, are we going to be looking at adapting IGF from being a nondecision-making body to a decision-making body? How do you do that? If it doesn't, clearly this is what the conclusion of the report and Secretary-General is saying -- how do we convert it forward? What are the conversations?

I'm putting it to you so at least you can help advance this conversation, because I don't believe it has really been addressed as solidly enough with all of the hoopla around the report.

These handful of words are key. How do we bring a model that is not meant to take decisions to actually be able to take decisions so that cyber space can serve humanity and be safe for everybody. My two cents, please.

>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Thank you. Thank you, Khalid. This is a relatively simple question. There is a need for agile, adaptive, smart policymaking. It was identified from all consultation from Silicon Valley to Governments worldwide. Therefore, there is a need for that function.

Now, how that function will be accommodated, is it IGF plus or some other forum is the other question. I can reassure you that Secretary-General is fully aware -- he's an engineer by training -- about sensitivities and specificities of digital policy space. Therefore, there is no appetite for a regulation for sake of regulation. Especially at U.N. U.N. has no conveying power. That need was clearly identified. To have a space with agile and adaptive way, some norms can be adopted. That was the first message.

Second message is that we have already quite a few spaces where an item with multistakeholder where norms are adopted. Is it enough? Do we need holistic or multidisciplinary approach? The reports provide some fruitful thought and provide some suggestions, but that is part of the discussion we will have ahead of us.

One important aspect of the report, I'm sure Olgar [sp], if he is are here, it has been his message for long time. We send a clear message that we must avoid the multistakeholder versus multilateral approach. Those two approaches cover different fields, they can be complementary. What we are seeing is many digital issues are gradually mainstream in the work of World Health Organization, International Labor Organizations and WTO, the question is how to make the processes more inclusive.

I think we are moving in the spirit of the age of digital interdependence from this previous dichotomy that existed in our discussion to more clearer, open, balanced discussion about this interplay on our different policy spaces. But this is the question that your contribution and contribution of all of you here in the room will be extremely beneficial for finding this right approach, whether it is IGF plus or one of those model or some maybe fourth model that could be suggested. That's important to keep in mind.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Jovan. Before giving the floor to the next question, just one complimentary remark. We heard cooperation should be based on values, on principles, and it should perform functions, those functions are referred to in chapter 4 of the report.

Elements or examples of functions were put in the Annex for the sake of readability and the length. Please look at the Annex and see what functions, according to the panel cooperation should fulfill. And how the functions are operationalized is another question to be debated. Yes?

>> QUESTION: Good afternoon. Adam Peek. Jovan, thank you very much. It was a clear and helpful introduction and review. Question, did the panel look at the costing of the recommendations that were made? What the economics involved? The various tranche of things you looked at. And any thoughts on funding and how we go forward from here? Thank you.

>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Short answer is no. We don't have it in the recommendation, but we discuss it in the panel's deliberations. And based on consultation that we have been having within the industry, Governments, and other actors, the message was more or less clear that there is a need to improve digital cooperation, and if we come with the solution that will address those needs or functions, there will be readiness to support it. Obviously, it is on the level of general willingness. As you know from the fund-raising activities to realize or to implement general words to the checks, if you can call it, it takes some time.

But I'm quite optimistic that there is a readiness to support some of those functions, especially help desk function. We heard from the development actors, and I think it would be probably the lowest hanging fruit that can be addressed in the follow-up. But we didn't -- when I said no, we didn't cover funding mechanisms specifically in the recommendation of the report.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: What is not in the report, Adam, you will receive a letter, everyone will receive a letter shortly stating that ICAN is invited to pay 1 cent per domain name registered to a special fund that will be set up.

>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: There is some other requirements from ICANN, but ...

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: So I think we have to move on. Thank you. Read the report, read the Annex with the functions. Be there 9:00 tomorrow morning, where we will continue discussion, and yeah, ask your questions, make your comments starting tomorrow morning. Thank you very much. And thanks to Jovan.

>> HOST: Thank you, Thomas, as well. Thank you, Jovan, as well. We'll see you all tomorrow morning, well prepared with not too many drinks tonight, that you have read the report. And have a lot of questions tomorrow morning to make it a very good session where you get answers to all your questions.


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.

Transcript II

20 June 2019 | 9:00-9:30 | KING WILLEM-ALEXANDER AUDITORIUM

Provided by: Caption First, Inc., P.O. Box 3066, Monument, CO 80132, Phone: +001-800-825-5234, www.captionfirst.com


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.


>> MODERATOR: Good morning, everyone. We'll start a little late. Let's go quick with this Day 2. I hope everybody had a good sleep and a good party last night. I think it was really amazing at the beach. I hope while everybody is awake now, it is good, fresh air. I would really like to give you the way forward, have a good half hour with a lot of questions for you, to get awake, to be a part of it.

>> Of course, thank you for last night's event. It was really nice. A nice location, good atmosphere. Thank you for this.

We all enjoyed it.

I'm Thomas, Swiss government, we have here those that you have seen yesterday, he was one of the coleads of the executive Secretariat and we have Marc, an old friend for those that work in Internet governance for a long time, he used to work for the British government representing the U.K. in a number of fora and this is the so-called Part II on the report of the U.N. Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on digital cooperation. Since the model of this has the word cooperation and digital in it, of course this is one of the closer links.

We have heard yesterday quite a good summary of what the panel was, how it worked, what the outcome was, and today we'll briefly introduce to you the process which we're offering for the European stakeholders to talk about it. Of course, we should use this, also this 20 something minutes to have than exchange on the substance. We would like to hear from you what you think.

We'll be able to answer your question, but you can also talk to each other about the report. Basically now the report is out. The U.N. Secretary-General has received it from the co-Chairs of the panel, and it is now up to the U.N. Secretary-General to think about, okay, what will I do with this report? What process will I do? One of the recommendations that are in the report is actually that the panel members advise the Secretary-General to hold consultations and to basically get the feeling of the global community, what they think of the recommendations and then implement it. What we already at EuroDIG decided in January is that we would like to be the first ones that meet after the report is public to offer space to discuss here physically and exchange views of European stakeholders on the findings, on the recommendations of the report, and in addition to that, we thought it may be useful to offer an online space for dialogue for exchange of views to European stakeholders, and so it is in the making, it will go live early next week. The plan is the following, that there will be two ways where you can use the EuroDIG website to exchange views on the report. One thing, it is a simple thing that there will be an email address that you can send the document, the PDF, whatever, with a one page, a two-page, should not necessarily be a 50-page comment, you can send the document to the address of the U.N. Secretariat and they will then receive all the documents, put them online, make them available so that others can see the comments too and that will then be compiled and then before IGN in Berlin, that will be one area of the report. Upload succeeded have the report on the website, Paragraph by paragraph, there is an option to register, say from which stakeholder you're affiliated to, what stakeholder group and then you can comment on each single paragraph of the report and say I think this is a great idea, completely missing, going in the wrong direction. You have two ways, one is a more generic way of sending in a paper with comments; the other is to go directly into the text and make your comments on the text and then others can make comments on your comments and so on, so forth.

This is the concept, and our friend Mark is the moderator, facilitator for this. He will be available to ask questions also, but he'll be the one that will then lead this. There will be some guiding questions that we'll put up on the website.

Let me give the floor to mark to say a few words on his role.

>> Thank you, Thomas. Good morning, everybody. It is great to see so many here promptly after last night's very enjoyable beach party.

Thank you very much for coming.

I would just underline a couple of points: It is the comment platform that's up and running, there are some comments already posted on it. Really look at the whole -- the report in its entirety. I know a lot of people are focusing on the options for an architecture, IGF plus, so on, look at the whole of the report in the entirety, look at the rational for its proposals, the issues it rises about gaps and mechanisms that may resolve the gaps and enhance the levels of cooperation across the whole digital community worldwide.

Secondly, don't take the report solely as a given. It is also a trigger for new ideas that can build on what's in the report. I think the panel is looking for that in terms of responses as well. Have a look. Look at the context, the rational and get your comments in. We really need your help. We need this intercessional project for EuroDIG to be a success and to make a valuable contribution to the follow-up to the panelist report. That's enough from me. Thank you for luring me out of retirement after I left government service back in March, it is great to be back at EuroDIG and helping with this process.

Thank you.

>> You have the mic there.

>> Well, Mark, it is great to have you back after a few months.

Good morning. Thank you for the lovely party last evening. I experienced a beach party in the Netherlands and it was really great. Thank you for organizing it.

First of all, I would like to congratulate you for acting in a way we can call it permissionless diplomacy.

One of the problems, diplomacy in public spaces, people wait pour mandate, wait for a green light and it is great that you just took this initiative, set up the platform and initiated the debate. I think this is expected from the U.N. and the colleagues who are now coordinating the follow-up exercise.

That's it. Yes.

>> So now I think we should stop talking -- sorry, by the way, sorry for the gender balance of this panel. Yeah. The floor is yours. Make your comments on the report, on the process, ask your questions. Let's try to have a debate. We know it is early in the morning. But maybe some of you may have some views. Now is the time to express them.

>> In particular, if you found some typo or spelling mistakes, you know.

>> Who has not seen or read anything of the report yet? That means many of you have actually looked at it to some extent at least. Everything as you expected, everything fine, nothing controversial? Should we get some coffee into the room.

Yeah.

Somebody breaks the ice. Thank you, Paul.

>> Just to get us going. Paul Blake in the U.K. government. Thank you for the presentation yesterday and congratulations on producing such a good report. I think there's a lot in it that the U.K. government would support, particularly around Sustainable Development, digital inclusion, gender equality, some really good points in there, there are some recommendations I think where we would be more caution and maybe even have concerns in some areas, -- cautious and even have some concerns, with but we look forward to having these cushion discussions in the coming months.

I wanted to ask about multistakeholderism in the report. It says a lot of good things about multistakeholder approaches, but it doesn't say so much about how the U.N. itself has to change more of a trusted platform. It talks a little bit about the U.N. role, and the U.N. we know essentially is an intergovernmental organization, stakeholders often find it difficult to engage with those kinds of processes, they sometimes find it difficult to get into the.

Roo, when they're in the room, sometimes the governments don't pay much attention to what they have to say.

Did the panel discuss at all some of the things that the U.N. itself needs to consider in order to tackle some of these issues? Thank you.

>> Yes. The question of multistakeholder approach, multilateral, it was topical in the panel discussion. Essentially we organize the discussion around three points. The first one, it is the first one, avoid the multistakeholder versus the multilateral.

Second point, to have clarity in the discussion.

I think that one of the problems in multistakeholder space, multilateral tech space, we have less and less clarity on the discussion. What is the role of different actors, how the other stakeholders can be involved in the process, and that was throughout the report, we try also to bring clarity and language and the using of the different concepts, and that was I would say the second point..

The third point, it was related to the U.N. I would say that we have managed to make major breakthrough, also in the panel, you have to walk the talk. It is not enough to say okay, we need the multistakeholder involvement in the U.N. system, what we did in a way of organizing consultation, it was important not only to this community, which is quite useful, the inclusive dialogue, but also to other communities which tend to work in different spaces, more let's say negotiating in intergovernmental spaces.

It will be initiated, added to that -- to what the Secretary-General called inclusive multilateralism.

I think we'll be hearing more and more about this concept.

Now you can frame it in a different way, multistakeholder, inclusive, multilateralism.

Back to how it is important to have decision making, consultation process, where the governments have to make decisions according to their treaty obligations in international organizations, how to open those spaces to more inclusive participation would be in my view one of the major challenge of digital policy ahead of us because digital policies change and are shifting to organizations, digital is discussing World Health Organization, WTO, other places, and for that, that will be a major challenge, how to have more inclusion of businesses, Civil Society, tech community, academia, let's say a discussion on data, health data, discussion on WTO, not the symbol of multistakeholder approach, that would be the major challenge I would say. That was well accepted by our colleagues from the U.N., from other agencies, and I think there's a ready-made understanding about the need to change it, to have more inclusion. Obviously the practice will be challenging as you know, but I will say that if you put in efforts in that direction, and there is a persistence, a clarity on discussions, not in blaming and shaming which is very dangerous in this field but constructive approach, we can achieve a lot. Especially for the inclusive multilateralism in the specialized organizations like WHO, WTO, humanitarian organizations, migration, other places.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you very much, good morning. Also from my side, thank you for the great party yesterday.

I'm Wolfgang Kleinwachter. I'm in the global commission and in signer space. I have a question in regard to the chapter on trusted security. One of the proposals in the panel, it is to have a call for -- global call for trust and security in cyberspace.

The wording, it is the same, the Paris call for trusted security, what it stands for, it was just signed or is signed now by around 80 governments and 500 non-state actors. We have in this field now so many various initiatives and documents. We have Microsoft, we have -- Microsoft, they're now planning a digital peace institute in Geneva, telephonic has proposed a new deal for Internet governance and my question is, you know, how you -- we have a situation which is similar ten years ago with principles for Internet governments, so many documents, Council of Europe, other countries, all of this was finally put in one declaration. My question is, we have so many security, it is cybersecurity initiatives on the table, what's your expectation? Will this all be channeled into a bigger Document at the 70th anniversary of the U.N. or do we just add another call for trust and security into the many, many documents and how you would organize and say the enhanced communication among the various initiatives that we do not duplicate what's already on the table. Thank you.

>> Let me start with enhanced. I know it will excite quite a few colleagues in the room.

Yes, that's exactly what is the challenge, not only in security field, cybersecurity, but you can find it in AI, since AI is a topic this year, there is an inflation of events, discussions, charters on ethics.

One can grew why we need so many activities, which I repeat there are similar concerns and principles, I'm in the camp that would grew that let's have as many initiatives as it is possible if they reflect the needs of people to express their views, what to engage their communities and that's in principle, in principle of welcoming approach. Now there is a question, how to coordinate. There are a few side effects to this general principle, to have people discussing all over the world cybersecurity or Artificial Intelligence this year, there are two major concerns. One, obviously sometimes it is -- well, based on resources, and second problem, which is sometimes undermining here in the countries that can afford to follow many processes, it is the small and Developing Countries and stakeholders in small and Developing Countries, they simply cannot physically follow so many panel processes. One can say that similar issues are discussed in similar places but it creates a feeling of being excluded, not being engaged and it leads easily into some sort of uneasiness or even frustration.

Therefore, one of the functions in the Annex which Thomas highlighted yesterday, it is that coordination function, which is not necessarily coordination -- I'm sorry, cooperation function, it is not a function that should be imposed on different processes in cybersecurity or AI. But the place of the information and views about different events can be exchanged and we say, okay, here we have discussed Human Rights in AI, in Geneva, we discuss the Sustainable Development, there is an overlapping discussion or in Paris we describe AI in ethics. This is a first point, to have some sort of an idea of what's going on, and to put around the table people from the conferences like in Lisbon, a huge event, those events are not just any more tech events, they're increasingly policy events or you can name quite a few initiatives. How to connect the dots among the initiatives, and to at least make them aware that similar discussion is going just behind the wall at the other event. That's the first point. to have enhanced communication.

The second point, it is to provide small and developing states or actors from developed states who do not have resources with relatively easy access to grasp the complexity, to understand what are the threads in the discussion, what are the main topics on Human Rights, ethics, AI. That's one of the ideas around this function of cooperation within the model. When it comes specifically to cybersecurity, we have been working quite carefully with that field because of the two initiatives in the U.N., the U.N. governments, U.N. DG and open ended group. This is where commitment was discussed as a possibility to have some sort of supplement to the current processes without replacing current processes.

I would say that part of the recommendation will take quite a bit of time in discussion among Member States and other actors. It is not definitely low hanging fruit like help desk or even general commitment which will be discussed in the context of the 75th year of the U.N.

>> Maybe to add one thing, if something is in you or fairly new and it is not clear from the start which institution is the best one to be the basis of the framework, of course, then there is a competition or a diversity of institution and processes that somehow try to position them on one hand and also try to offer a space and as long as it is recommendations and best practices, so on, it can be a whole variety, if there is a feeling that something needs to be binding, of course, then you would have to agree on one process and one institution. If that's not clear in the beginning, it is clear over time which framework is the best one, the most trusted on a particular issue to find something binding and in Europe, this is usually the Council of Europe because it is the most comprehensive and multilateral institution in the U.N. it depends on what the issues are, and we're not there yet and in the field of security, there is no agreement on which institution is the best, the most trustworthy to get reasonable result in other fields, it is similar, people are looking to see where they want it to go and where they don't want it to go. We're in the middle of the process. If there is a need for something binding at some point in time, you can agree there may be several institutions if you can with die the issue in several aspects. If it is supposed to be holistic you will have to end up somewhere. If people don't agree, it won't happen. There won't be a process.

>> Thank you very much for this report.

I'm Antonio. I work in the southwest of Spain in the field of digital inclusion.

Our main challenge, it is to get young people in rural areas motivated. I checked in the report, and there is 7 times the word youth appearing. I would like to ask what is the role that youth organizations have played in the development of the report, and what is the message that organizations working with youth should take from the recommendations, please.

Thank you.

>> We consulted extensively youth in different events, we had the targeted discussion and also side discussion like with the gaming community, which is mainly a community of concern for the youth. The question of -- the rural areas, there are two types of exclusion, youth generational and also space related, cities versus rural areas. It is discussed intensively, especially when it comes to Developing Countries. Now, what can be done practically in the follow-up, I think that the youth organization should organize themselves like we're organizing ourselves here at the EuroDIG and the follow-up on this specific tracks, they have now the context. Especially on the recommendation one, when it comes to the inclusion and that's the sort of general discussion, more specifically we can discuss later on and I can give you the Pointers to the part of the U.N. system which was particularly interested in question of youth, like UNICEF and there was an interesting concept just this idea which came into discussion, I think it came into the report as a notion, it is the right of future generations. What are we going to leave for the future generations when it comes to digital knowledge? Possibility to use their innovation and that's just an interesting concept which was discussed.

We have two more comments and then we have to hand over to the next Plenary.

Go ahead.

>> I will have a presentation this afternoon about hashtag code. I would like to comment on the previous question about documents that are confusing the image of where we are in terms of security or whatever the topic. A few years ago, U.N. had an initiative making the U.N. paperless. Now, I think the U.N. needs another initiative of becoming information-centric. Now, information-centricism, it has been covered in a few reports by the Obama administration about open government it is important not to discuss least Developing Countries, small development -- small Developing Countries, so forth, the problem of coping with the information overload and the extra hurdle that's created by hiding specific content in big documents, it is really a major problem. Now in hashtag coding I will present this afternoon the overall view, but we also have a view in which we do Article by Article coding in any of the report. We could do that for the report of digital cooperation group and actually we're pleased to see the initiative with the possibility to comment Article by Article. In fact, you can for each Article create an open discourse in the Internet just by giving it the hashtag code. For instance, DC and the number of the Article in the report. Now the U.N. I think should really take such the approach very seriously because they're one of the major contributions of documents and these documents, they're one of the major hurdles to communication.

That's my comment.

>> I'm coming -- I'll join your session definitely.

In brief, an aim of the panel was to increase the clarity of discussion. It is not anymore the discussion just for experts, it is the discussion for all citizens.

I have to admit that we faced bigger challenge in decoding tech language than the U.N. language. We had two challenges, on one side, U.N. bureaucratic policy language and on the other side, tech language. Somehow in the panel there were a few of us trying to increase clarity, there was a bigger challenge on the tech side to translate tech language into the understandable common sense language.

>> Thank you.

The lady, please.

>> Good morning.

I'm from Bulgaria, Ministry of Transport information technology and communications.

My question is on page 2 of the document, there is written we believe that a set of metrics for digital inclusiveness should be urgently agreed. So far there are too many indicators. It is interesting in the UNESCO indicators.

Can you tell us something more about these new indicators? Thank you.

>> Sure. The panel's report, it is a policy document, Document produced by 22 members. In discussion we brought not only UNESCO but also ICD, World Bank, ITU, you have a few matrix.

What the panel members felt is that for some reason there is no -- there is not enough coordination and there is -- there's no metrics, databased on that metrics which focuses mainly on inclusivity.

Not necessarily technical assessing the inclusivity, but we came to 15 different digital inclusivity. Including the multilingualism, the question of rural areas, youth, generational aspects, therefore there was a feeling that in addition to economic, the economist inclusion index, probably the most developed, there is a need to combine all of those indexes and a possibility to develop new metrics that could focus more specifically on holistic approach to digital inclusion.

>> Thank you. Thank you for the questions. We have overran already. We better windup.

We have to pave way for the Plenary on cybersecurity I think it is.

You have seen the programme, there is not really a Part III, I will be available in the amazon room from about 3:45 onwards to explain more about the process and to log any further questions.

Al please do use the comment platform which as I said is up and running. Thank you very much for attending and enjoy the rest of the EuroDIG here.

We'll finish on behalf of everybody. We thank you. Thank you.


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.