I Want to keep Jon, Hello, good afternoon, good morning, wherever you are located. My name is Jon kur Bah, and I'm particularly honored to chair today's session and to moderate discussion, moderate chat with all of you, and in particular with Serena telanu, the author of the publication, unpacking the global digital compact. Before I provide some sort of introductory remarks, how you can engage with this fascinating publication, let me just say a few words about Serena. No, in our life, we have always somebody who we ask for opinion, severe in doubts, second opinion with doctors, and we are fixing our flat when I need really solid opinion. Anything on digital governance, internet governance, AI governance, I ask Serena the following reasons those advices or those comments are always fully informed based on the not only detailed understanding, in this case, global digital compact, but also understanding of the evolution other processes, whether it is versus whether it is IGF, those are very informed advices. Second point, they're impartial for we'll always hear what is the position of one actor the other actor, and you get great landscape. And by the way, those informed, impartial are keywords in the projectivities there her comments are always impactful. Therefore, there is always a reason. Why? Why do we do this? Why do we discuss something? Why do we hire we to take to discuss this publication. Therefore, that informed approach, impartial and impactful could describe Serena. I'm not going to go into the details about her career. She's very honored, and I'm particularly honored to share the office with Serena here in Geneva, and it's a real treat when it comes to knowing, understanding and engaging in serious discussions. Now let me explain a bit of history of this publication before we ask Serena to reflect on a few issues, in particular to hear your views and questions. This publication has an interesting history, because it started with the start of the process of global digital compact. Serena had been reflecting, first for us internally, of what was going on, what were the major discussions, and later on, she shared her updates with so called Tech attache circle, which is very interesting community in Geneva, and I'm sure that some of tech attaches are in our today's session for tech attaches have been gathering once a month, sometimes twice A month. One of the ongoing issue was unpacking, following on the next version, the global digital compact today discussion all of us at Diplo take attaches also sharpened Serena's thinking and already laser mind when it comes to understanding of those issues. Therefore, when compact was established on 22nd of adopted on 22nd of September, during the Jon summit, the future as a pack, as a part of Pac of the future, we started getting questions about the compact, about implementation, you know, many, many issues. And here is how the idea for this application came into the to the motion, Serena was shocked. Initially, I thought, Serena, let us use a bit of AI. You have, you know, everything you have, 140 slides of the latest version. Unfortunately, I couldn't convince her to use AI. Therefore everything is written by Serena. I hope that I will convince her that we use a bit of AI in updates, but it is a humanly written and analyzed text, and this is where we are today. Only 47 days after the adoption of the global digital compact, we have the publication on 170 pages, well documented with the first note, and I'm sure that it will be one of the corner store, Corner Store application for the for the follow up. So in these discussions, we take attaches and as a Diplo, we were obviously asked many questions about the global digital compact. I'm sure that you will be raising this question during our discussion today in the follow up, there are sometimes controversial question and those of you who know us, we don't beat around the bush. They're respectful, but we always go for the deep analysis of the things, the issues and global digital, compact summary is new kid on the block which brings a fresh breeze in digital governance discussions, which introduce and re energize the mostly policy makers in this field. This is extremely important development, and we should capitalize on it as national leaders, un leaders, corporate leaders, are trying to see what to do with digital and AI developments in the same time, those of you who have been in the process are aware that there were processes that have been going quite some Time, mainly central around world, summit on information society, IGF and other developments. Usually there is a binary framing in many thinking is either or global, digital, compact or, let's say, versus processes. What we've been insisting and Serena, I think, implement really well is that we develop smart and good convergences between new kid on the block and existing expert expertise and experience, which have been developed during the process and IGF processes. And this is the major undertone how to make simple and easier access to global digital governance, negotiation and AI governance in negotiation, in particular, stakeholders from small and developing countries, but not only them, how to avoid duplication, how to create convergences. This is probably the major challenge, how to use this new energy from global digital compact and combined with some sort of experience and expertise from the longer processes of the vases. That would be, I would say, at least, for me, the major undertone and the major contribution which Serena book is making, and you will be hearing shortly. What does it mean practically? Let me just give you a few points, practical links and points that you can refer to. First of all, here is the publication project. My colleagues will share the links to the page. When you register to this page for the for the use, you will also, if you want, obviously register to receive the publication and the updates. Publication is part of so called Diplo style Kaizen publication. It's Japanese word Kaizen on continuous improvements for this is the first version, but it will be constantly updated. And you will be you will be seeing how it will work with Serena, making occasionally closure around arguments, around around developments. Therefore, when you register here on the link which Mina will provide, you will get this publication. I won't go through the publication. This is what Serena is going to explain, explain to us. But let me just give you a few few few few glimpses how it will work. It is developed around her PowerPoint slides that she used for this famous Takata. She briefings, and you have you when you go through the documents, as you can see many who's not references to the verses to other processes, deeply anchoring into the wider digital governance, governance discussion and the processes. And then when it comes to global digital compact, every points, every discussion, is referred to specific part of a global digital compact. I'm just going quickly through the through the through the document. Obviously we won't read together. It will take some time, but let's say, when you find the number, in this case, number three, when you click on it, you are going to specific article and provision of digital compact between we will show you what exists, what exists, what exists there.
Therefore every provision of the global digital compact is basically referred to specific part. Now we are in the global digital compact document. This is the another page, and I will share the link. You have the text of global digital complex arranging in accessible way. On the top of it, you have also AI chat bot, which is trained on deploy AI, and also Serena books, but not only her book, but also other materials. When you can ask any question. Obviously, you're familiar with chat bots. It's now getting the basics of the digitalization, and you can access to the global digital, compact issue and wider digital cooperation issues through this chat bot. This is the, let's say one angle is publication, the ad angle is the chat bot, where you can see the references to the specific parts what we are also currently doing, and it will be read in a few days we are anchoring into the text of the global Digital compact two aspects. One is commentary on travel, preparator, preparation comments, what's happened in negotiation, and we will obviously follow with implementation when it when it comes there, it could be some sort of useful reference point with with which we would like to support efforts of the UN and in particular, efforts of the Office of the tech envoy and to develop inclusion support for the discussion around the global digital compact and other policy processes. Another, the last resource in this short summary is the reflective page on the process around global what is the background? How did we come here? And what were discussions? What were the major dilemmas? Timelines, sort of but very detailed analysis you will see from Serena's publication, particularly useful, at least for me, and you will let us know are the references to negotiation, negotiating process. Therefore, by seeing how the particular formulation evolved over the time, you can see also controversies. Obviously compact. First text was very ambitious detail, but as the process was moving on, it reflected different interests. And still, these are powerful document, but quite a few provisions have been diluted, which you have anyway in any negotiating processes. But the key messages that in this time, where it's not easy to find consensus in global negotiation. It's a great news for digital internet, whatever call it, cyber community, have this document which brings new dynamism, and we have ahead of us. The major challenge how to link it to the other processes and ultimately do what we are supposed to do. We, as researchers, teachers, you as a diplomats, journalists, to try to answer the questions of which citizens, companies, countries, communities are asking about digital existence, about AI developments, data protection, knowledge protection and other issues that are raising in relevance. Therefore, I'm particularly honored invite Serena had many sleepless nights to tell us more on her, take her introduction, and then that way, we will start discussion and hearing your views. I can see the list of participants. There is a lot of expertise in the room, and I'm looking for really exciting events. So Rina, congratulations, and over to you,
everyone. Thank you, Jon, and thank you for the kind words as well. Thank you for to all the participants for being with us today on a Friday for the launch of a publication park in the end of a very, very long process, at least on our side, at Diplo, I'm not going to spend too much time because I don't want to reveal too much of the publication. You should be going through it and see to what extent you can use it in your further work. But just a bit about what you will find there, and then a few very general reflections about the whole process. And then, as Jon was saying, happy to have a bit of a dialog. Jon was scrolling through a lot of the publication, and what you will see there, as you go through it as well, you will see that we start with providing a bit of a context. Yes, we have a global digital compact, but the global digital compact has been built on the legacy of other major processes and major documents. So we have taken many, many steps back, starting from the 1998 and then going through the whisis process, the roadmap for digital cooperation and a bunch of other things that have basically set the scene for the global digital compact. And in doing so, we have also tried to answer some of the questions around what's going to happen next, for instance, with the WIS plus 20 process, and what are the milestones getting there? As I'm guessing, most of you here know, there is this high level meeting in 2025 which will be looking at the implementation of which is outcomes. So we also tried to bring a bit of clarity there. Okay, we have this meeting happening in 2025 but what are the key elements that will be prepared in the lead up to the meeting? So you'll find details there as well. After we set the context, we basically go to the GDC, where we try to look a bit at the process as well how it started. What were the many versions that have been made available throughout the negotiation negotiating process. And then we look at the document in detail. We take section one by one, and we try to unpack it. And by unpacking it, we in looking at the provisions, both what they say, also what they don't see. We try to see what has changed between the zero draft and the final text. So you will be seeing a lot of reflections of this was in this version, it changed to something else, because we feel a lot is being said by what is actually not included in the final text. So those are interesting things to keep in mind. And then we also ask quite a lot of questions, because as the as all stakeholders move into implementation, we feel there is a bit of need for some clarity in a few places. So some of our questions are geared into that direction. We also reflect on some of the discussions that have been happening here in Geneva, for instance, on what would be the contributions of UN agencies, many of them based in Geneva to the implementation of the roadmap. So after each section, you will find this section we call international Geneva and the GDC. So we give a few examples of UN agencies here who could bring some sort of contributions, again, hoping this would help in the later dialog about the implementation of the GDC. And then we end the publication with a bit of a summary where we try to just provide a quicker overview into everything that we have written up to that stage again, in a way, I'm trying to summarize it so looking at some of the commitments by governments, which have a very concrete output as a goal, looking at the calls on the private sector, and asking a few more questions there as well, and also providing sort of a timeline in terms of next steps. So what's going to happen with the implementation and review of the GDC, and also when we map the next steps, we also try to map next steps related to the wiz plus 10 review, and also with the agenda 2030 because there have been all these discussions about how we are going to create some sort of linkages between These three processes. And at the very end, we basically have two pages of questions where we're trying to put forward, yeah, just more questions around how this interplay between the GDC and we see plus 20 could be shaped moving forward, there's about a year ahead of us to try to answer some of these questions. So we hope we can contribute, at least with some questions to this debate. So that's in a nutshell, what you're going to find in a publication, as Jon was also saying, it's an evolving publication. So if you have feedback that you would like to share with us or your own reflections, please do so, and we can also try to reflect those in the next version. And that's basically it, about what you're going to find that in terms of very general and rough reflections about the GDC, because we have been following it, I would say, quite closely throughout the negotiations, trying to see how the text has changed. What were some of the controversies? There are many, many ways to look at it, but I think first and foremost, it's actually a good recognition of some of the challenges in the digital space we have around us, and also a good recognition from member states that they want to do something around tackling these challenges. Yes, it was not an easy document to negotiate, and probably at the end of the day, not everyone is equally unhappy, as we say in this space, but the fact that there was a document at the end of the process is actually a good sign in this complex geopolitical setting. What is in the final document, we have all these commitments from governments. We have a few calls on the private sector. Some of the commitments have specific targets. Some of the targets have been diluted in the process, showing some of the difficulties on agreeing on the more complex issues. As you probably also have noticed, there is a strong anchoring in the sustainable development goals, and that's why we also try to bring the links with the next steps in the implementation and review of the agenda, 2030, of course, some of the issues that the Compact is addressing are not new, and they have been discussing Swiss. But what the GDC is doing is showing, again, some sort of commitment from member states that we want to do a bit more in addressing these issues, and with the commitments and with the calls on the private sector, and with all the new mechanism process created, the actual work starts only now. The contact has been adopted. But how are we actually moving forward to putting all these into practice? And in the last section I was mentioning earlier, we also try to sum up these new we call them mechanism processes, these ideas of scientific panel on AI, the global dialog on AI, governance, funding options for AI capacity building that the Secretary General is going to create the new working group on data governance that is starting to work at CSTD. These things that are kind of new coming out of the GDC, but still need to be shaped. So we cannot yet say, for instance, that we have a scientific panel on AI, or that there is a global dialog on AI governance. There is still work ongoing or about to start to define these processes. So a lot more to still pay attention to, and I would say, a lot more to still contribute, firstly as Member States, but also as other stakeholders, because these processes are meant to still include input from other stakeholders as well. As we looked at the multiple changes between one version to another, we also noticed what were the main controversies, and you will find those in the publication. I would say most of them were not necessarily surprising. We will also be reflecting a bit on some of the things that we feel would have been included in the compact and would have strengthened it. I won't say much, but you will find a few references to this in the publication. And yeah, just to wrap my wrap up my notes, the key indeed will be in implementation. So we look forward to seeing what's going to happen next and how all these processes will unfold, and also, as Jon was saying, how things will ideally be brought a bit gather. So we don't spread that in resources, we as stakeholders, but also member states have so I'll stop here and happy to engage in a dialog. Thank
you. Thank you, Serena. Based on your comments and what just Marilia also wrote, sometimes it is more important what is not said in the late, late last version, for example, and what was dropped in the process. And when we did the analysis last few days, Serena and myself by discussing it. You know how it works in diplomacy, it's always you have two techniques, basically to go to least common denominator and then the language is quite empty, or to use agreed language. I have to the that we found to this, the following conclusion that there was a clear effort to avoid a least common denominator, and especially for example, in AI field, where there is which we know follow quite closely between two camps. Essentially, long term is in camp which basically deals with the future challenges of AI and approach which is addressing current risk of AI. And there was a reasonable good compromise which is not just least common denominator from diplomatic technique. It was interesting also to follow all of this aspect. We have a few questions. We have a question from Mark Carvel. Mark, great to see you. Serena, can reflect more on it. The Serena Mark asked about how the inputs of stakeholders were featured into the into the final document and draft Mark, just before I pass to Serena, there is an interesting discussion around introducing some sort of Sao Paulo NetMundial toolkit to see how our inputs are reflected in the various documents, including a question about GDC. Here is one good news, which we may use much more, where AI can help us. The processes are transparent. If you have all inputs, whether it is zoom or official statements, you can with a relatively high precision, trace back your input to the final document. Are your ideas reflected button or in spirit in the final document. Therefore, in global diplomacy, the this inclusion side, we will have an interesting tool developed which can give us a reasonable, good indication to what extent views are reflected. But let me, I'll pass to Serena to comment on this. Serena Max question is, to what extent inputs are reflected in GDC,
Mike, you're pointing to one issue that we have not tackled in the publication, in the sense that we did not reflect on the process. We all know that there have been some concerns regarding both the you know, participation of stakeholders, and as you're saying, how their input was taken into account, that concern was also shared by some member states. So we felt okay, let's not deal with that. We only look at what's in the text, but as we reflect on the text, and as we reflect that some of the changes made between the versions of the GDC, you will also see how these changes actually did reflect some of the inputs that stakeholders, both member states and not non governmental actors, made during the process, for instance, around human rights. The language in the final text is quite strong, and I think everyone here knows where a lot of those contributions came from, and also there have been many, many changes to the section on internet governance, reflecting some of the concerns that stakeholders, again, governmental and non governmental, have been raising. But what we cannot do, we cannot point out exactly how the individual contributions were or were not reflected in the final text, because some of these meetings are not as far as I know, the recordings are not available, and also the contributions of member states are not publicly available either. So our analysis is basically based on text, looking at how things have changed from one version to another. I hope that helps.
Thank you, Serena, we have next question from Wallace Cheng, not question that they would like to contribute. I think that there is a call from the office of the CAN WE for con, for organization and countries to contribute. Therefore, please, and there is a link on our website, contact colleagues from the office of the canvoy and contribute to discussion. That's definitely, I'm sure it will be welcomed by by then, we have a question from basil Rahman, from Bangladesh, indicating the activities in Bangladesh on compact and in his organization. Congratulations. It is available. Yes, you can register and you can download the document. And Mina shared, my colleague, Mina, yes, shared interesting question from Marilia. And our colleague, Marilia Maciel, is following closely negotiation in WTO on E commerce, and she noticed disconnect between WTO negotiations and negotiation the UN that maybe Serena, you can reflect on that. But let's go through the few other questions. Congratulations from Cecile publication offering us this presentation. Can we share? GSM, yes, you can share. Definitely, me now already the answer Nena. Therefore the first question was concrete on the on this, Marilia on the data. And we have from Nena, one topic that is top of my mind is the shift from multi stakehold to multilateral in tech policy. Certain consultations were held, I organized a whole bench, but to certain extent, it has no longer clear some of the stakeholder to what level the contribution from the consultations matter. That is, if they matter at all, since ultimately the negotiation was uniquely by UN member states. Serena will will reflect on that, but as she indicated, we didn't focus on the question of the of the process. I'm sure that people from the Secretariat can can answer this question. But as I indicated, we have an interesting AI tool that can increase increase traceability of the inputs by countries and other stakeholders. And I'm sure that should be using the future negotiation more actively. Nena, there is also the predominance of AI. Did you notice how they got quickly centralized? Do you think the UN member states jumped on a bang on? Is this hype that we can discuss separately. But Nena, it's not surprising everybody speaks about AI. It is to the large extent policy hype. And I would say the compact addresses AI in a reasonable, balanced way and around around the risks. And you cannot discuss digital AI issue today without reflecting on on AI, the real reason or for the high prison. But my take on it, and we'll hear from Serena, is that it's quite, quite balanced. Serena backs back to you on the two questions from really, on data, cross silos, coordination, and from NENA for this shift from multilateral, multi stakeholder in AI, then we'll continue. Thank
you. Thanks everyone for the question. Just before I go into those questions, I'm seeing a link that anda has shared with contributions from member states and other stakeholders. Thank you, anda. Just to clarify, those are contributions that were made when the office of the tech envoy launched the public call for input, and that was at the very start of the process. I think what people are asking here in the call are broadly about the rest of the public consultations and also other contributions that have been made when the process got a bit more you know in depth, like working on the text and negotiating on the on the text, Maria on your question, I honestly don't know, but I'm hoping there will be an interplay, and there is a good chance for that to happen, because both WTO and CSTD mandar, whose framework is data governance group is established, are in Geneva. So at least the physical proximity would help create this I hope this link, and also because some of the diplomats who are following issues here in Geneva at cacd also do the same with WTO. So there's a bit more chance for this interplay to be built here in Geneva on the question of AI as a hype? Well, yes, I don't think we could have had a compact that wouldn't have tackled artificial intelligence, because it is so much all over the place, and everyone is discussing it in one way or another. But it is very interesting to look at how the text in the AI governance section have been changed from one version to another, because this will tell you a lot about the controversies and the areas on which member states couldn't actually agree about. You know what's going to happen next. And just a few examples, I think it was in the very first version of the contact. When the initial idea was to say, We want international governance of artificial intelligence, because we kind of don't have it. And that text was quickly changed to reflect on the fact that there have been already some sort of governance frameworks put in place at an international level. So the shift changed a bit to cooperation. So we want to have more cooperation in the international governance of AI, and then also the language about the new mechanisms, the scientific panel on AI and the global dialog on AI governance. Those two started as more concrete proposals, what the panel is going to do, what the dialog is going to do, and because member states couldn't agree on these specific roles and what's going to happen with these two mechanisms, the language in the final text is rather light, and a new process is actually put in place to continue discussions, to define the terms of reference And the modalities for both the panel and the dialog. So I'm expecting these intense discussions to continue once the CO facilitators are appointed in New York. And again, as I was saying earlier, I think this is another element to keep a close eye on and to try to contribute as much as possible. As for your other point, Nena, it also relates to what Mark was saying earlier. And again, I cannot provide any sort of reflections there, because we haven't been part of the organizing team of this process, so we cannot really say much. But again, as you look through our publication and we reflect on changes made from one version to another. You might also understand how some of their input made by some of the stakeholders was reflected in these changes.
Thank you. Thank you. Serena, if a few question Abel negesh from Ethiopia, Abel about integrating in foreign policy, that's probably one of the issues, especially digital diplomacy. Then we have Emma the tinavi val the GD introduced a framework for digital governance. The integration of these commitments into national the regional policy remain the challenge that's definitely through Lada. Does GDC connect to other policies, political, sensitive negotiation like open ended working group or cyber security or GG on AI, does it have potential to bridge between these different processes and increasing increase convergence? Ask, pass this to Serena. Maria Soledad, Hello, and thanks for this great contribution. I like to ask, what is your assessment on the extent the final document reflects the increasing concern about the environment, the cost of digitalization? Thanks from etc group, let's hear from from Serena on vladas concern. But just a comment, since my experience at the panel is that there is a, let's say, red line, marginal line between cyber security, first committee and the rest of digital negotiation. And I think it is kept clear in GDC, but we can hear from Serena more details. Serena, over to
you. Thank you. Yes, just the plus one to what Jon was saying cyber security in the sense of what's happening at the open ended working group, what happened at the G or the discussions around cyber crime in the ad hoc committee are not at all tackled in the GDC. I think that was a decision made at the very start of the process not to deal into those kind of cyber security and cyber crime issues. In fact, there were earlier versions of the Compact which included the term cyber security to reflect, to refer to cyber security skills, building skills in cyber security. And even that term, the actual term of cyber security, was removed throughout the negotiation to reflect, probably some of these concerns that we do not want to deal with cybersecurity in that sense, in the global digital compact. So if you do a search, there's not one mention of cybersecurity there. There is a section on safety and security, but that deals more with risks to human rights and misinformation and hate speech and these kind of things that are tackled in that context on environment. Also interesting to see how the various provisions on environment in the global digital compact have changed between the multiple versions of the GDC. I think it did start as a more ambitious set of provisions with some specific targets. I think there was something around net zero emissions from digital technologies, or something along those lines. These paragraphs on environment were consistently being changed, and we reflect on this in a specific cross referencing section in the publication, so you can see there a bit more how the language has evolved and what ended up being included. I think there's still a strong commitment to addressing some of them, challenges that come with the intense use of resources, for instance, in the development of some of the digital technologies. But yes, some of this language was also toned down throughout the process, I think, reflecting also some of the disagreements that are happening in, you know, other processes that deal specifically with environmental issues. So I don't think we could have expected the GDC to tackle things that dedicated processes couldn't have tackled. If I can go back quickly to vladas. Point Vlada if you look at the broader pact for the future, which is, you know, the broader framework to which the global digital compact is annexed, there are, there a few more general references to security issues, also, for instance, in the context of artificial intelligence and its military applications, which is something, again, the GDC doesn't tackle itself.
Stop into your things. Thank you, Serena. We will make you really busy today. There are really, really interesting questions, and let me read the other the other questions that came we have. We answered the question of environment Maria from Peter Elias that today Maria was in our office delivering the course, and it was interesting discussion on link to the E commerce negotiation. Since she's more most likely on the train going back to Strasbourg. We won't bother her, but it is an interesting dilemma. We probably should organize session around that. But Serena, would you like to reflect quickly on that link to e commerce and WTO and generally economic section of the of the Compact?
How do I put this? So there is a section in the GDC which is dealing with economy issues, but the section is focused on fostering inclusion in the digital economy, so it doesn't touch on issues that are discussed at WTO. In that sense, for instance, there is just one mention of E commerce in this chapel to the whole paragraph saying about how the more transparent enabling environments, like policies and regulations, could help the growth of E commerce. So the whole section on the digital economy is actually focused on fostering inclusion in the digital economy, and it talks a lot about building this kind of enabling environments, supporting small and medium sized companies to better compete in the digital economy, fostering technology transfers between the North and the South, and these kind of things that are more related to access to technology. And these are also some of the things we reflect on in the publication in the sense that, yeah, probably some of the issues around taxation or E commerce could have been at least mentioned in the compact as something that you know, governments commit to looking more carefully into because there Are these separate processes happening at WTO and elsewhere.
Sorry. And just to add on that, among this missing parts, given what is going in the public discourse, like aI on the Nano question, you cannot ignore AI, there was a bit of missing element of over reflections on the monopolies, on big tech companies, because it's a big issue over from the US Congress to to Europe, to China, all over the world. And that was, at least for me, personally, missing part, but probably it was the result of negotiations. Kevin caller, Kevin, you're reflecting on AI part you want to reflection. What are the key questions for the new institution, like scientific panel, global dialog, Global Fund. I know Serena focused on that a lot, so let's hear from Serena.
Thank you. Yeah, we're also asking a lot of questions that have been raised during the process, and that probably will continue to be raised as this process will be starting soon in New York World restarting, I would say, because members, they will continue discussing these issues. So on the panel, because the provisions are so vague, there are all these questions, okay, what will the panel actually be focusing on? We know it's going to be a multi stakeholder panel. There are also the question of the composition and how members will be selected. Then what kind of outputs we produced. Earlier versions of the Compact were talking about reports that would have been issued, I think, annually and then twice a year. And there were some changes there as well. Now there is no reference to any sort of output, how to create this interplay between, you know, scientific work and then the fact that something will have to happen with that scientific conclusion of whatever the panel will be discussing. So all these things will continue to probably be discussed in New York as the shaping of the terms of reference is going to happen, and for the dialog, the provision is even more general in the final adopted compact, we know it's going to be this global dialog on AI governance, and that is going to be held on the margins of existing meetings and conferences within the UN system, but we don't know more about it. So again, questions here, under whose framework is this global dialog going to be held? Will it produce some sort of outputs? What will happen with those outputs? What will be the participation of stakeholders that? How will it have an interplay with other discussions on AI governance happening at the international level? And there is also the overarching question that is accompanying both things, which funds? What money is going to be used to fund both the panel and the dialog? These are just a few examples. We have a few more questions in the publication, and I'm pretty sure more questions will come up as this process restarts.
We may on AI. Just reflect on one thing during the life of the GDC negotiation, you had the complete shift in the AI discourse from the real alarming notes. You remember letters signed by scientists from Silicon Valley, Ban AI, stop this software, the development to, I would say, more reasonable and balanced discussion. Remember, one year and a half, there were people who wanted to ban open source Lama and other developments, and that that was a bit more the discussion matured, and that was important that I'm sure if the GDC was adopted 18 months ago, it would have had provision of establishment of some new body to deal with. Ai, now its discussion is much more reasonable. I think it's good aspect that we have much more balanced and reasonable and evidence based discussion. Anita, thank you to the link, yes, please comment and chat with both Serena's book, but also wider resources that we gathered around GDC, Mark expressed concern that there was no transparency in the process, and remind us that UN has a long way to go to embed effectively, open, inclusive, accountable, multi cycle and engagement and interaction needs processes to develop proposals like the GDC crystal of Buddha. It seems African academics, if I'm correct, let me see, I'm sorry, academic have been left out on the AI governance and effort discourse, we cannot talk of implementation TB are all brought at the table, no, just represented by our governments who may not understand the realities on the ground. I don't know exactly. We don't know. We didn't focus on the process here soon, but I cannot agree more than you said that African inputs, and in particular, inputs from the non state, non state stakeholder is going to be critical if we want to have inclusive, balanced artificial intelligence developments. And that's that's very, very important under thank you again. Could you share your opinion on whether the GDC is more likely to promote convergence or divergence in AI governance. Interesting. Serena is coming on that question. I will read up this weekend. Thanks from NENA Pamela, thank you. Thank you, Pamela, for joining Serena. Is it going to promote convergence or divergence on AI governance? I can only hope there
will be more convergence. I think we have seen, again through the changes from one draft to another, that there are still many, many areas of disagreement between member states. Because again, these whole new ideas of a banner of a dialog of a global fund or finding options have not been shaped up very clearly in the final version, but the fact that there are processes that will continue to look into these issues, I think, is an opportunity to get to more convergence and less of the divergence. And I think we've also seen recently a few announcements about, for instance, the Office of the tech and working more closely with OECD on AI governance, with the focus on risk issues. So we're seeing more interface around this. So probably at the end of the day, it was actually good that it was tackled at this level, because there was also more awareness raised about the already ongoing, existing work that has been happening in so many places. So now we could also be seeing more convergence between these various tracks of work across the human system, but also beyond the UN system.
Question comment from Suman, if it is going to be translated in the other languages Suman, fortunately, these days, it can be easily translated. It's translated in six Jon languages, but with the use of AI tools, I guess it can be translated at least in 30 or 40 more languages. Maybe it could be suggested to the the office of the tech NY, or can do it individually. That's That's these days easier, easier to achieve. Ellen krugo week indicates as the question about cyber security, about cyber norms, as we indicated, global digital compact doesn't cover cyber norms, neither cyber security nor cyber crime. Serena already mentioned that. Yeah. Vlada answered it already. Vlada also roles of other stakeholder implementing cyber norms. In particular, supply chain vulnerability is a part of the Geneva dialog. And the Geneva manual, which Vlada is working on. And you can contact him. He's quite an interesting, inclusive, multi stakeholder development on implementing the norms. Emma tinavi, the PAC financial commitments are vague, lacking specific targets, timelines and detailed implementation strategies. Can you discuss how the substance of specificities hinder progress on the SDGs? Thank you. Serena will answer. Let's take one more question. What is Diplo strategy in supporting GDC implementation in Geneva and country level, Serena, please. You first answer in mad if you comment on the deploy approach, I can also help over to Serena
on the question of financing. I don't think that's an issue that is specific to the GDC. We have been having these questions since probably the early whiskey days, all these ideas of funding mechanisms and all these things put in place at a new level, UN level to, for instance, help with the digital divide and all the concerns around them, how effective they have been, or how ineffective they have been. The global digital compact, indeed, doesn't talk much about where to find the money to implement some of the commitments and calls. In the compact itself, there is a call at a point or some sort of an invitation for the private sector and philanthropic organizations to contribute and around specific issues. There are, well, provision is probably a strong word. There are indications that there needs to be scaling up of finances and there needs to be more effort put in place to ensure that these things are actually happening. Not so concrete, but again, I don't think that's surprising, and I think it also reflects the reality that we have been seeing elsewhere also. And then there is this notion of financing for capacity building, for artificial intelligence, where the initial, well, some of the initials, initial compacts were calling for the establishment of a global AI fund to channel finances into specifically the developing and least developed countries, to help them develop AI capacities. That also became a request for the Secretary General to come up with innovative financing options in consultations with the private sector, the UN entities, and others. So we will see what will come out of that process as well when this brought up to the General Assembly. And we do actually have a section in the publication which looks exactly at how references to funding and financing are being made throughout the contact so do look there as well for a bit more detailed reflection on these things.
Meeting on Diplo.
Sorry, what was the question?
What is Diplo strategy in supporting the GDS implementation? Oh, do
we have a strategy? At least here in Geneva, we have been trying to support in the sense of providing our own insights into the process and looking at again, the negotiations and how the text have evolved, and we can continue to do so as these new Well, New World processes continue. As I was saying there are quite a few new things that have to still be developed for them to take shape. And other than that, while the publication also indicates a bit how the broader Geneva ecosystem can contribute to the implementation of the compact and that could also be an opportunity to have a bit more discussions here in some sort of collaborative manner on what could be done moving forward, and also the last section of the publication would be an indication of how we might still feed provide some input into the processes. And these are our questions about building this interplay between GDS implementation review and follow up, and we sees implementation review and follow up again in the lead up to wis plus 20 the meeting next year, there are quite a few issues that will have to be looked into carefully if we really want these two sets of documents, the GDC itself, and also there was this, there was this outcome documents to drive us into this inclusive, open, sustainable, digital future that both set of documents are outlining. Jon, if you could also add to
this, well, we will use our approach like this arena publication to have informed, impartial and impactful discussion, and that's our role. We are not advocacy organization. We provide inputs for all stakeholders, and in particular stakeholders from small and developing countries, with the focus on on Geneva and helping small and developing countries to participate into the into the processes we have Serena, the question from Mark, dear Serena, agree with some concerns that the scope of IGF, as referred to the company, is too narrow. As the IGF mandate come to up renewal Jonga Next year, it is important to reform the current wide scope of the IGF related to emerging digital technologies, quantum AI, etc. And there's the first question in there, Linda kanushi, is there any support regarding the increasing digital gaps? Are countries with the less economic sources supported via the GDC. Two questions are in IGF and the support for overcoming digital gap.
Thank you for these questions as well on the IGF. Those of you who have followed the process know that the provisions on the IGF in the GDC have been among the most controversial, and they have really been changed quite a lot between the VC drafts. The text right now, as I read it, is actually borrowing language from the VCs plus 10 outcome document talking about IGF as a platform for multi stakeholder dialog on issues of internet governance, something like that. I cannot quote it exactly, but that exact same language was also used in the voices plus 10 outcome document, and that also reflects what Jon was saying earlier, that whenever we we will, whenever there couldn't be agreement on something reverting to previously agreed language seem to be the two go option that have also been these controversies around funding for the IGF, for instance, with the lighter language in the end, but well as the GDC itself leaves a lot two With this plus 20 review next year to discuss IGF will obviously be discussed there as well and its future. It's also interesting to look at how the terminology has shifted between these various documents. And we have a two page reflection in the publication on on this it is to some extent, our understanding that actually the final language in the GDC around multi stakeholder Internet governance tends to be, if not the strongest among the strongest in un GA endorsed documents, so documents that have been endorsed by the UN General Assembly, which also, I think, is a win for those stakeholders who are pushing for more clear recognition of the multi stakeholder approach to internet governance. And what was also not tackled in the final version of the Compact was this idea which existed in some of the interim versions about the GDC, establishing a track to look into the implementation of GDC commitments. The fact that this disappeared in the negotiation doesn't mean that it cannot be taken up again when the wasis plus 20 process advances. So look at our two Page box in the publication where we reflect a bit about this, on this terminological changes, and also maintenance of some of the terms between the early we sees documents, some of the UN G area resolution on ICD for sustainable development, and the WICs plus and outcome document, also comparing them with GDC and I completely forgot the second question, Jon, if you could repeat it. The
second question is from, from Linda, about overcoming how to support countries with less resources, and overcoming digital gaps and divides.
There are quite a lot of provisions in the GDC about well supporting digital development in developing and least developed countries that are all these notions of technology transfer, about north, south, south, south and triangular cooperation, and quite a lot of Reflections also on the need to respect the local realities, challenges and needs at the national level, whenever we discuss or we move into the implementation of some of the commitments, to what extent these are, you know, very concrete and actionable commitments that you can put your finger on and Say, Hey, I want to see this happening in five or 10 years. That's also up for discussion, and we do have a few reflections in the publication, specifically around this question of how actionable and meaningful some of the commitments are, and what will happen with them once we move into implementation. But the GDC does recognize the need for more support for developing and least developed countries in their digital development efforts.
Breen, anything in GDC about biases? A question from Linda, there's this algorithmic biases, I'm sorry,
not directly, but there are all these notions in the AI section about ensuring that AI is developed with human rights consideration. They are human centric and respecting international human rights law. And governments commit, for instance, to govern AI in the public interest. So indirectly, there are, or there could be, references to this as well,
questions from and good news from Emma, then the connecting online about Africa participation, I have one proposal for for two of you and other colleagues from Africa, there was good provision in UNESCO. Recommendation of 2021 on respecting Ubuntu and other traditions in developing AI system, it has been missing in the sub segment documents, not only GDC, but other documents, therefore, that could be made, that could be an idea where African stakeholders can push for the introduction of the African ethical cultural system and values to development of AI systems, future AI systems. Mark, there is valuable acknowledgement in GDC of the emerging worldwide of national regional IX, does deeply believe the and that I can contribute substantially to implementation the compact commitments. If so, how in particular, well deploy diploid doesn't think, but Serena thinks a lot, and here and there, other colleagues make reflections. Serena let us know.
Yeah, that was another result of requests by various actors to have a reference in the GDC of the national and regional IGF initiatives. Personally, I welcome that as someone who has worked with the regional IGF for many years, and I do see valuable contribution that as well, if nothing else, at least in making governments aware at the national level that, you know, we have this global digital compact, and you as the government have committed to doing this and that. So what are you doing to implement these things? Because, you know, it's not uncommon to have a disconnect between the negotiators in New York and the actual government at the local level, who's doing or not doing something. So at least that very low hanging fruit could be a meaningful contribution from national and regional IGF initiatives.
Thank you, Serena. That's more or less, more or less all. Thank you for an excellent questions we have now we'll leave Serena. Serena was in a sprint, not only because of the drafting document, but we had very busy week with colleagues from Gru lock and other countries coming to discuss digital issues. There is a lot of interest and dynamism in Geneva, but I would like to thank you all wish a nice weekend to thank Serena for this great contribution, I would say, for global public good of inclusive, informed, impactful discussion on digital governance. And with that message, I wish you nice evening rest of the day, and we can then keep connected and issue soon. All The best. Joe Jon, You
