IGF 2024 - Day 2 - Press Room - PT Session 7- Building parliamentary capacity to effectively shape the digital realm

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Hello.  Shall we start?  All right. 

Good afternoon, everyone.  I would like to welcome you all once again to Saudi Arabia.  It is a country where visions become concrete and dreams become reality. 

My name is Dr. Rima Al‑Yahya, and I am a member of the Shura Council, and I will be moderating today's session on Building parliamentary capacity to effectively shape the digital realm.  So wow, what an amazing two days it has been so far.  And there's still so much to come. 

But what I noticed while attending the previous sessions, whether it's discussion was on navigating digital transformation, global cooperation, or developing large‑scale systems and innovation, is that the ultimate core of the talk will always stress the importance of building capacity. 

Yesterday ‑‑ Senator Shuaib, I am going to quote you ‑‑ stated "What you don't know you can't give."  That is totally true.  This session will discuss what parliaments and parliamentarians need in order to play a full role in shaping digital policies and how to build capacity in parliaments, as well as navigating the challenges and the opportunities of the digital transformation era. 

I would like to introduce my experts today.  On my left, I have Mr. Franz von Weizsaecker, Head of Programme, Citizens Engagement and Innovative Data Use for Africa's Development, GIZ.  He is heading the economic portfolio of GIZ's Office to the African Union based in Addis Ababa.  You are so lucky.  This includes the Data Governance in Africa initiative, a multi-donor action funded by the European Union and five European Member States. 

On my right, Ms. Becky Burr, ICANN Board member.  Ms. Burr is a partner of Harris wilts shire.  Her she focuses on data governance and cybersecurity.  Prior to joining the firm, Burr was Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer and has been involved in Internet Governance issues for more than 25 years.  She was also the Director of the Office of the International Affairs of ITIA during the creation of ICANN. 

Also on my left is Ms. Olga Skorokhodova, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Emerging Markets, Head of Caucasus, Central Asia & Russia, Google.  She is responsible for Government Affairs and policy in a number of areas.  She also leads AI policy engagement projects within the Emerging Markets team covering 100‑plus countries at Google. 

Also on my right, Mr. Cedric Wachholz, Chief, Section for Digital Policy and Digital Transformation for UNESCO, which includes multiple artificial intelligence workstreams and the use of frontier technologies for attaining the UN Sustainable Development Goals through advocacy, capacity, and public policy developments, as well as other workstreams. 

So with that said, let's start with Ms. Burr.  Ms. Burr, what is exactly ICANN's role in the ecosystem, and how can members of Parliament collaborate with this global organisation? 

>> BECKY BURR: Thank you for the question, and thank you for asking me to participate.  It's a great honour to be here and to be in Saudi Arabia for my first time. 

ICANN has a limited but very critical role in the Internet ecosystem.  Its fundamental mission is to ensure the secure and stable operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems, the building blocks of DNS, including names, numbers, and protocols.  If names, numbers, and protocols don't work, your Internet content will not ‑‑ messages will not get where they need to be.  So the security and stability and operational resilience of the DNS is critical. 

ICANN accomplishes its mission in several ways.  First, it's coordinates the allocation and assignment of top‑level domains, both the so‑called generic TLDs, like com, net, and org, as well as the two‑digit country code TLD, such as .sap, .fr. 
     Second, ICANN coordinates the development of policies concerning the registration of second‑level domains, so the .com.  But in this case, only in the generic, not in the country code domain name space.  Because country code domain name space policy is established in country. 

Third, ICANN affiliates the coordination of the DNS root name server system. 

Fourth, working with regional address registries, such as RIPE, NCC, and LACNIC, ICANN coordinates the assignment of autonomous system numbers used to route Internet traffic. 

And finally, in coordination with the Internet engineering Task Force, ICANN provides registries for the authoritative record for many of the codes and numbers contained in a variety of Internet protocols, also often referred to as RFCs. 

ICANN does not have regulatory authority.  Rather, its role involves convening, coordinating, and facilitating the collaborative work of stakeholders, including the technical community, civil society, business, users, and governments. 

National governments, distinct economies, and intergovernmental organisations participate in ICANN's multi‑stakeholder policy development processes and provide advice on public policy matters, primarily through the Government Advisory Committee, or the GAC.  The GAC has 183 governments as members and 39 intergovernmental organisations as observers.  GAC delegations may include lawmakers, and ICANN welcomes this.  And we have also seen parliamentarians participating in the GAC delegations. 

There are many other ways that parliamentarians can participate in ICANN's multi‑stakeholder process.  Parliamentarians are always welcome at ICANN's meetings, which happen five times a year and rotate through areas. 

It is accessible, everything is translated into the six UN languages plus Portuguese.  ICANN also operates the robust capacity‑building programme designed to lower barriers to participation while increasing diversity and effective participation of GAC members, including from underserved regions. 

Capacity‑building events have been held online as well as in Nairobi, Johannesburg, Dakar, Kathmandu, Abu Dhabi, San Juan, Panama City, Cancun, and many other places. 

Parliamentarians are welcome to participate in programming sponsored by ICANN and its partners, such as our annual Universal Acceptance Day, where we promote acceptance of non‑ASCII scripts, so internal domain names, and other initiatives such as the Coalition for Digital Africa.  While ICANN is headquartered in Los Angeles, it has a global presence, with offices in Brussels, Montevideo, Singapore, and Istanbul.  And smaller engagement centres in Beijing, Nairobi, and Geneva. 

Members of ICANN's Global Engagement team welcome outreach from parliamentarians and would be very pleased to assist you in answering questions, connecting you with resources, and helping you participate. 

In addition to resources and engagement opportunities offered by ICANN and its programming partners, parliamentarians may want to engage directly with local ICANN stakeholders who are very knowledgeable about the ICANN process, who are very anxious to work with their government representatives and their legislators.  And these include country code domain name operators, regional associations of country code operators, and regional at‑large organisations and regional address registries. 

I am happy to answer any questions you have or provide further information on how you can collaborate with ICANN in furtherance of a secure, resilient, and globally interoperable Internet.  Thank you. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you.  That's amazing.  Your job is really full because participating in meetings and attending ICANN events will expose parliamentarians to the best practices as well as networking with others, so they will definitely benefit wherever they attend. 

All right.  Thank you so much. 

All right.  So second question is directed to Mr. Weizsaecker.  Sir, the GIZ is a strong partner of the African Union in supporting capacity‑building activities of members of parliaments.  How can parliamentarians effectively contribute to a harmonized digital landscape?  And it would be great if you could give us some tangible, concrete examples. 

>> FRANZ VON WEIZSAECKER: Thank you so much, rima, and thank you also for working in Saudi Arabia.  Coming back after 15 years being abroad and coming back to Saudi, I came back to a very different country that's really a much more modern place.  Much appreciated, and I am very excited to be here.  Thank you. 

So I work for the GIZ office to the African Union.  And GIZ is a part of the German Government for international development, and so yes, we do support the parliamentarian track of IGF and parliamentarian capacity development as part of the Data Governance in Africa initiative.  That is the EU project that has been funded by EU and five different European Member States. 

I do believe that Germany, who might remember the IGF in Berlin, Germany was actively promoting the participation of parliamentarians in IGFs to be part of the dialogue because, in the end, it is the lawmakers that have to bring the governmental role and have to have ‑‑ to promote a well‑informed governmental role into digital policy‑making. 

And our support to the African Union and its 55 Member States and the Regional Economic Communities is around harmonizing the digital policies, in particular the data policies, as well as supporting a number of other initiatives, such as the African Digital Compact and the African Union strategy. 

The African Union Data Policy Framework is the effort to harmonize our data can be shared by government, by private sector, how it can be transferred across the border, and that is very important in Africa's ambition to form a digital single market to allow also companies to work across borders, and this is to encourage the investments in the start‑up ecosystem.  Because in many cases, these businesses need the opportunity to scale across borders as well in order to really reap the value of the data economy and the AI economy built on that, of course. 

We do face a lot of debate ‑‑ that might be an interesting discussion with Google ‑‑ of data colonialism and of extractive business models, taking data from African citizens and maybe generating profits elsewhere in the world.  And we do take that very seriously.  So it is these national debates on economic policies that are going on of how can the value of the data economy be maximized, the value that is created locally, and the local economy and tax collection and so on are benefitting from?  So that is a very important debate to have. 

And the right answer to that is, in many cases, to not limit the cross‑border data transfer, but rather, to encourage it because more economic value can be generated by connecting and by sharing data across borders.  So that is the policy of the African Union Policy Data Framework.  And we have now reached a stage where we have received from the 55 countries of the African Union, we have received 22 requests by 22 Member States that want to the African Union data at national level, as well as the Regional Economic Communities of EAC, East Africa, SADC, who4 all want to be part of this harmonization effort.  And I believe it's a very important initiative to really reap the benefits of the data economy at the national level and at regional level in Africa.  And that's what the German Government, with its European partners, is happy to support, along with that policy support, there is an infrastructure investment facility on data centres.  And investment in data centres.  As well as a promotion facility for data use cases in various sectors.  So agricultural data, climate data, financial systems data.  And this is all about sharing models that work across the border. And between stakeholders, private sector, public sector, and so on. 

This is what we are doing, and I believe it's very important that parliamentarians be part of this debate in order to really fully support the role of the government, of lawmakers, to pass the necessary harmonization efforts at national level.  Thank you. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Amazing.  Amazing.  Can I ask, how far have you gone in harmonizing the digital landscape?  From your experience, 55 African countries of the African Union is a large‑scale project.  So I know you mentioned 22 countries being interested in the policy framework.  But have you seen any tangible harmonization so far? 

>> FRANZ VON WEIZSAECKER: Of course, the passing of legislation is nothing that happens from one day to another.  So for example, there is policy drafting going on in Angola with a new data protection law, in Zambia and the Gambia, so those are one of the most advanced countries in those efforts currently of adopting the AU Framework.  As well as efforts on in the region of ECOWAS in western Africa, the regional framework is being updated to comply with the African Union framework.  And there is from those 22 countries that have requested ‑‑ it's a long list, too long to read here ‑‑ but 9 of those countries have done an assessment to see how far advanced are they in the various aspects of data governance.  And we have done several capacity development measures in the Gambia, in Nigeria, as well as on the regional level.  It is advancing very fast.  But you are right, it's very ambitious.  55 countries, I think we will not get there to implement in all 55, but we follow the first step approach to provide support where it's requested. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Amazing.  I raise my hat to you. 

All right.  Moving on to Mr. Wachholz, Mr. Cedric, UNESCO is actively contributing to digital policy‑making, capacities and inclusion, and has worked with members of parliaments on AI regulations and emerging approaches across the world.  What regulatory approaches to AI can you recommend, especially to parliaments with less capabilities? 

>> CEDRIC WACHHOLZ: Thank you, Madam Chair.  The answer to your question is there is no one‑size‑fits‑all approach.  Thank you first for giving me the floor and thanking Saudi Arabia for its hospitality, for hosting the IGF, but also for the Parliamentary Track to invite UNESCO to join.  This is really a much appreciated cooperation. 

So we are talking about a very hot topic which is rapidly evolving.  Over the last year, there are more than 30 countries which have adopted AI regulation by parliaments.  And just if you look at the Stanford AI Index from 2024, they saw that the number of citations and proceedings across the globe where AI was mentioned in legislative proceedings doubled, just in one year from 2022 to 2023.  So it is really something which is gaining in importance. 

And we have worked together with the IGF Parliamentary Track, but also the IPU, on different capacity development activities for parliamentarians.  But also we have looked at existing regulation and looked at different approaches.  Because that was your question.  And so there are a number one can distinguish.  There is a paper we developed, and we had actually inputs from more than 100 parliamentarians from legal experts, but also from AI experts on that.  And it is online available.  And there we distinguish, actually, nine different approaches. 

And of course, one needs to ‑‑ and I will rapidly map them.  But of course, it is all a question of context and to see what are really the best regulatory approaches. 

So one, we would distinguish ‑‑ and probably it is not one approach most countries will adopt, but they will mix different approaches.  So there is that I mention. 

So the principle‑based approach focuses really on the broad ethical principles to guide AI development.  And some of you might be aware that UNESCO, UNESCO's Member States, but through a long multi‑stakeholder process, over three years, has developed an AI ethics recommendation adopted by all Member States.  And that was a long process.  But these ethical principles are, for us, the foundation and guiding principles.  They are also human rights‑based.  But this would be a principle‑based approach as one. 

Then there is, of course, a standards‑based approach, which involves really creating specific technical standards for AI systems to ensure certain safety and compliance.  One can certainly also mention agile and experimentalist approaches, encouraging some flexibility and experimentation in AI regulation.  Also to adopt and be ready for a number of technological ‑‑ rapid technological changes. 

The AI recommendation of UNESCO, for example, was launched, actually, the process in 2017‑2018.  It took three years, was adopted in 2021.  So you need to actually also have some flexibility in adopting.  It is absolutely relevant also in GBTH, that hasn't changed.  But we had some foresight in doing this work. 
     Another approach would be one of adopting existing laws and modifying already existing current legal frameworks.  Then comes the one which we would call the access to information and transparency, which ensures we operate transparently and information is really accessible to all stakeholders, which isn't an easy exercise, but some of the regulations aim that.  The risk‑based approach is one many of you are familiar with because the European AI Act is very much based on that approach.  Some might have heard about that.  And it is about assessing and mitigating risks associated to AI applications. 

Now, the rights‑based approach is prioritized with really the human rights in the deployment of AI technologies.  And the liability approach is the one assigning responsibilities and also sanctions to problematic users of AI. 

Now, as I mentioned, these nine approaches represent different pieces of a puzzle, and I don't know if I have a little bit more time to say why, when, and how to regulate or if we should keep that for later discussion. 

Okay.  So of course, there are more or less three reasons I would name to regulate.  So the why.  One is, of course, to address the public problem.  And secondly is to really promote, respect, protect fundamental and also collective rights.  And then the third one is really to create an enabling environment, but also shape a digital future which is safe and which corresponds to the desired digital future. 

So when you regulate, you need to ‑‑ and this is a process probably some of you have gone through in different other contexts.  But of course, you need to have one of these justifications or several ones to go forward.  But then also, ask if there are any regulatory tools.  Also, is it feasible from a legal, political, and administrative point of view?  And if you answer all these questions yes, then you probably should regulate. 

Then there is, of course, the how‑to.  Keeping human rights at the forefront and as the basis and core of it all is an important foundation.  But then also considering agile methodologies, as sandboxes and test beds, and there are some examples for that too. 

And then for us, it has very clearly shown that multi‑stakeholder approaches are key in this domain.  So to consider multiple perspectives so it is representative but also inclusive and also realistic. 

So we have partnered ‑‑ well, I will not go too much more now in details, I think, but just to say we were very happy to have a few capacity development workshops with the IPU and the IGF Parliamentary Track, and just to recognise that. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Great.  Remarkable.  You were saying one size does not fit all.  Do you customize your regulatory approaches with A, do you engage nonprofit organisations and organisations with responsibility, do you reach out to organize training for parliamentarians, especially those countries with less capabilities? 

>> CEDRIC WACHHOLZ: Yes, we do, and I like the multi‑stakeholder approach of this panel too.  I think it is very helpful.  Now, there are different approaches, and for example, I mentioned the AI ethics recommendation, and we have different tools developed, for example, to do first a country assessment, to have some facts as a background.  And this has been rolled out in more than 60 countries to really assess the AI landscape, which is a helpful tool to then have some evidence to guide the way forward.  We have a comparable tool also for companies, where some companies have bought into that as recommendations. 

So assessing first the country situation, the needs, the landscape; and then adapting different tools makes more sense to me. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you so much. 

Now, last but not lest, Ms. Skorokhodova. 

>> OLGA SKOROKHODOVA: Thank you very much.  I quite like being the last one of the panel because you can enrich yourself with all the knowledge that has been shared before.  It's really inspiring to hear all your perspectives. 

I wanted to start by expressing my gratitude on behalf of Google to the organizers of IGF and to Saudi Arabia, the host country, for their hospitality and for having us at this Parliamentary Track.  This is very special, and it's a big privilege for our company. 

At Google, we believe that collaboration is the key to address today's complex challenges, from climate change to healthcare delivery.  We also believe, of course, it's no secret, that digital technologies and AI can play a crucial role in addressing these challenges.  And in doing so, we are also deeply committed to working with governments and parliamentarians around the world in two ‑‑ I would say roughly two very important areas.  One is shape the policies that will define digital age.  And more and more we are talking about AI policies.  The African Union has been just mentioned as one of the examples.  I love citing this example in some other regions, where when I visit, because I think that is remarkable with African Union, this is something where we as a company are involved in really discussing the frameworks, national strategies and regulation that shapes digital realm. 

And secondly, in terms of our work with parliamentarians and public officials, we are committed to deliver impactful upskilling and capacity‑building programmes for public officials.  We have to be honest, I would say.  This AI ascent happened very rapidly.  It also, you know, it was a surprise and it is still a surprise to many public officials.  And they ‑‑ you know, they don't ‑‑ they must not have all the capacity that you need to have to address these issues, to regulate them in a smart way.  That's why capacity building specifically targets public official and parliamentarians, policymakers, regulators, a very, very important aspect. 

And if we talk about AI, we now have already some picture, right, of what is the price in hand.  And one of those is McKinsey estimate, it's $26 trillion U.S.  That's a full AI adoption in terms of potential economic impact.  It's actually higher than current GDP of the United States.  So to really leverage this potential and convert this potential into economic reality, especially in the emerging markets, we really believe that strategic approach is important it and to help governments of emerging markets specifically to charter the path forward, this spring we came up with a roadmap policy recommendation set that we called AI Sprinters.  We use this term to nick Name countries that lead in terms of AI in terms of economic opportunity by using AI and digital tools. 

So our recommendation is that governments and specifically parliamentarians, as they think about how do we use AI for economic development, they should consider focusing on four main pillars. 

One is really infrastructure, and it's about securing access to reliable Internet and to cloud computing.  Because there is no AI without cloud computing. 

Second, it's about innovation.  We briefly talked about AI colonialism.  We think it's important, why we should be thinking and talking about how do we extrapolate the value of data to the local economies.  What is also crucially important, and we really see with our products, is there is enough data locally available to power locally developed tools and AI applications or adopting the global tools that already exist but to the local reality. 

I will give you just one simple example.  We have a special AI model that can actually help you predict flooding nine days in advance before it occurs.  And flood something a big deal and a big economic factor in Africa and Central Asia, et cetera.  But we were not able to launch this model and scale it in some countries of my region that I cover, Central Asia, just because there was not enough data publicly available for it.  The government sits on that data.  They do have historical data of how rivers behaved, but it's not disclosed, so we can't offer our model that can help you, you know, mitigate potential risks.  Potential human impact, economic impact.  But you can't do it without data.  So really making sure that the data is available for development locally is very important. 

Then policies and skills.  I want to touch on what we are doing in terms of public officials upskilling. 

Really three initiatives I want to mention.  Because we do recognise and realize the responsibility as a global player to prepare public officials and parliamentarians to the AI‑driven age.  So what we are doing is that through google.org ‑‑ it's our company's philanthropy branch ‑‑ we gave modern times U.S. 5 million dollars to a political AI government, AI campus, that's a special programme created to bring AI education specifically to public officials. 

Beyond global programming, the Government AI Campus has engaged with leaders across the United Arab Emirates; Saudi Arabia, our host country; South Africa and other countries to bring tailor‑made education to the civil servants at scale. 

We also recognise that to ensure that these upskilling programmes are truly inclusive, you need to have proper language coverage.  So all the curriculum of AI Campus is translated into ten languages, including Arabic, Spanish, and others, to make sure that actually countries that need this capacity‑building support have access, you know, in terms of language offering to our programmes. 

We also recognise that policymakers and parliamentarians in emerging markets may need more tailored approach.  And we ran, as a company, our internal bespoke AI Academies, we call them, which is basically a crash course on AI applications, but also on AI regulation, that we offer internally to the policymakers across the world.  We, in this year only, we ran seven AI Academies practically in all of the emerging markets ‑‑ Latin America, Brazil, the Middle East and North Africa, sub‑Saharan Africa, Central Asia, Turkiye.  Again, recognising the need for more robust support, specifically in sub‑Saharan Africa, we launched an AI Sprinters online course, which is developed based on our recommendation and roadmap that we offer for emerging markets on how to drive AI adoption.  This course we launched at the UN General Assembly just this September, and we already trained more than 300 African officials at the UN General Assembly, but also with the support of UN Economic Commission for Africa and the World Trade Organization. 

So I think my time is up already.  But I just wanted to conclude by saying is that we at Google also look at capacity building for public officials and also at really the policymaker, once it comes to AI, is a collective multi‑stakeholder project, I would say.  And here, definitely companies like ours have also a role to play, and we are happy to be part of that ecosystem.  Thank you so much. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Amazing.  That's amazing. 

What you are saying just reminded me of something that's really similar that's being implemented in Saudi Arabia.  It's not with parliamentarians, but it's with our graduates.  We have exceptional graduates who graduate, and then when they apply for their jobs, they don't get accepted because they don't have the proper capacity‑building skills that they needed.  So we felt that we needed to bridge the gap between academia and industry sector.  So a collaboration of different academies, such as the Saudi Digital Academy by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, and we have the Academy of Cybersecurity by the National Commission for Cybersecurity, as well as several other academies, and it's a lot what Google is also doing.  And they started boot camps for graduates between the age of 22 and 28.  And this enabled them to be equipped with the proper skills required by employers when they lack hands‑on experience.  So certified degrees by Google, by red Hat, by IBM, are procured easily for these graduates.  And these graduates will become parliamentarians, with time some of them will, so that's really amazing what you are doing. 

All right.  So let's open the floor to a discussion.  We'll start by four questions, and if we have time, we can have another round of four questions.  So we can start, Ms. Merriam? 

>> Hi.  Thank you very much for this session, yeah.  My name is Mahad, Egyptian parliamentarian.  And actually, I know a lot of programmes you are all running, but with the government.  I have never heard about anything with the parliament or for parliamentarian. 

So I would love to have all what you said.  I don't know if we can ask the IGF Secretariat to take ‑‑ just to write all these initiatives that can be used for parliamentarians and gather them in a document and send it to us so we can actually benefit from it. 

I am from the ICT industry, so maybe I don't need that very much.  We all need to learn, of course.  But the other parliamentarians, they know nothing about what we are talking about.  And at the end of the day, they will be the people who will vote for any legislation regarding AI or any acts regarding anything related to technology, so we need badly to have capacity building from them. 

I am very happy that you raised the data colonisation subject.  But I don't think that we still have an answer.  We need to work together to, I don't know, have some ethics regarding the data flow, regarding the data colonisation, regarding not to benefit from our data because we have more people than the West.  Again, the Global South and the Global North.  And we need more for Global South, please.  We actually need this. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you.  Any other questions?  Yes. 

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you very much.  My name is Catherine Mumma.  I am a Senator from Kenya.  Just to overemphasize that government is not just the executive.  And parliaments play a critical role in shaping policy.  And my colleague is right that over 95% of us do not understand this technical sector.  And we need deliberate greater investment in getting the competences of parliamentarians across the board, not just a few, to be able to contribute from an informed position when we are doing regulation on digital technology issues.  And this is going to be across the board.  It will be in the financial sector, it will be in the health sector, it will be in the water sector.  So we can't just say the ICT committees of parliament are the only ones which need competence.  If we are going to do telemedicine and I am sitting on the Committee on Health, exactly how should I shape that law in order to be ‑‑ to make it facilitative, not obstructive? 

So I think those working on this need to deliberately invest in this.  Because there is a potential of parliament actually harming rather than assisting in the entire process. 

Come to go AI, don't you think it might be too early to say that we can define a particular law in a particular way?  Might we want to focus on the possible harms that would come with AI and focus on strengthening legislation against those harms, whether it is criminal activity, how do we bring ‑‑ how do we improve child protection law, for instance, to deal with a pedophile behavior, criminal behavior?  Might we be doing better strengthening the laws on offenses and criminals rather than coming up with a law we call an AI legislation that is not seriously informed that may very well stifle innovation?  I don't know.  What do you think about that? 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you.  Thank you.  Very good question. 

Yes?  Sorry. 

>> ALHAGIE MBOW: Yes, good afternoon.  And thank you very much for the wonderful presentations across. 

First, I just want to thank ‑‑ my name is Honorable Alhagie Mbow, from Gambia and Pan‑African Parliament, which is an AU parliament. 

I just want to thank you generally for this wonderful, wonderful information that we are hearing from across the presenters, particularly ICANN.  I must be grateful because they provided some training to about almost 30 members of Parliament in Rwanda this past July.  And it was a great initiative by ICANN.  We are very, very thankful. 

Now, I agree with my colleagues.  Because oftentimes, when you deal with government, you are only dealing with the executive.  The Parliament is actually exempted.  And the buck ends with us.  At the end of the day, with laws, with regulations, Parliament has a big role to play in it.  And that's the reason why sometimes you bring a bill in parliament, and it takes ages.  Why?  Because parliaments do not understand.  They need to make a lot of consultations, in and out of the country.  Because of the fact that there is a knowledge gap and that would make that bill stay there for a very long time. 

So this capacity building, particularly in the area of technology, I think is important.  If we can partner with various institutions to help bridge that gap.  Because the government, these executives, they will not do that because, again, they have their own budget, we have our own budget.  But again, at the end of the day, it's the same country.  So anything that we can do, we can collaborate to ensure we bridge this gap, which is a knowledge gap in most members of parliament.  We have very, very few members of parliament that can understand technology.  I am an exemption because I am a software developer and I have been in the field for 25 years now.  But I am one in maybe 100 or 200 members of Parliament.  Like my colleague from Egypt said.  So if we are able to do needs‑based assessment, you will see some very interesting data on technology.  And anything we can do together to help close that gap in terms of capacity development I think is going to help a lot in the long run to ensure that at least we are all on the same theme in this infrastructure. 

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Today, this morning was started by a session with representative of the private sector.  And those were focusing a lot on saying that we don't need to have any regulations at this stage. 

This afternoon, we are looking to UNESCO representative who are kindly sharing with us what UNESCO has been doing regarding regulation. 

The question is really is there a frame for us to start to think regulations to regulate the AI?  Are we in a hurry?  If we say we are going to regulate, are we supposed to really go back to say, okay, since we have got the data protection law, since we have got the privacy law, since we have got the consumer protection law, that we don't need to have an AI law? 

But again, AI is something new.  Many members of parliament are not aware of.  Unfortunately, none of them attend all the sessions organized by IPU from time to time to learn.  So really, I am a bit in a dilemma today.  When I came in this morning, I have a different idea, when I am closing my day today, I have a different idea.  It would be nice to hear from the four speakers there, how do they see?  Are we ready to put a regulation, a law, exactly something like what the EU did a few months back?  Or we are saying no, leave everything as it is today and focus on the various laws you have, data protection, the privacy law, and the consumer law? 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you, thank you. 

All right.  Let's start with the first question by Dr. Maha that has to do with how capacity‑building initiatives are directed to parliamentarians specifically.  And also discussing the data colonisation issue concerning the focus on maybe more focusing on the Global South. 

So we can start with Ms. Olga. 

>> OLGA SKOROKHODOVA: Yeah.  Thank you so much for your question. 

In terms of specific trainings that are available or not available to parliamentarians, all the initiatives that I listed, what we were doing at Google, they are open to parliamentarians.  But definitely for me, the key takeaway with my colleagues and my company would be really to start thinking more strategically around how we engage parliamentarians.  And here definitely our colleague from Kenya also made an intervention on this topic.  And we are happy to share with the IGF Secretariat all the information about the programmes that we are running.  Definitely, I am not sure about Egypt, but we definitely had some parliamentarians from the African continent that took part in some of our initiatives and programmes that we ran this year. 

I also, in terms of data colonialism and how we should approach this issue, I think there are two aspects that I wanted to highlight.  First of all, when we think about specific ‑‑ there could be some specific ways we can approach the taxation issue.  And here my colleague also brought this up.  And I think that from the Google perspective ‑‑ and I believe that's also shared by the industry players ‑‑ we ‑‑ for us, it's important that the approach towards the taxation would be synchronized or would be, you know, the one that would be universally applicable.  And we definitely work very closely with OECD on digital taxation matters.  What is difficult for us is to have 198 approaches to really taxes companies like Google.  So we are definitely supporting the international, you know, international synchronized approach. 

And in terms of really making sure that Global South benefits from AI solutions, I think that at Google, we specifically focus a lot on making sure that our AI solutions, they are for social good.  And I am happy to see that many, many solutions that we actually develop, they are coming from the countries in the Global South.  We have, for example, an AI office, an AI Centre of Excellence in Ghana.  From that centre, many solutions that we then apply in many different countries around the world they are coming from that Centre where we employ people locally, where we also leverage data locally. 

One of the solutions that I mentioned, our flood prediction solution, is actually coming from the Global South in terms of where we developed it.  And we have a bunch of solutions like that.  So I think that's also an important question of how big companies approach that aspect, AI for social good.  And I think we have so many use cases that could drive real‑life impact in the Global South.  And that's something that we should definitely prioritize. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you.  Thank you.  Mr. Weizsaecker? 

>> FRANZ VON WEIZSAECKER: If people ask a question, we have 16 answers.  I will try to summarize it combining the questions related to data colonisation as well as AI laws. 

I mean, one of the key questions is so who reaps the benefits?  And usually data is a resource that is very different from oil in the sense that when you cannot burn it and it's gone, but rather, it develops its value by sharing and by transferring and by adopting, by updating and so on, by connecting the data.  And that's why it is a different type of good also to see in the context of the postcolonial debates is that a resource that shall be kept in one place?  For a physical resource, that makes a lot of sense.  And for this virtual resource, it makes less sense because it creates less value. 

For that purpose, I have something in the pipeline.  I hope to soon be able to launch a call for papers for, in this case, African researchers, economic researchers, to guide policymakers as to which policies are best to maximize the value creation happening in Africa, in the country.  The value creation as well as the related tax collection.  Because I believe in many cases, the answer is not to shut down the borders for data transfers, but rather, to enable local innovation to enable ecosystems that harvest and generate value that can create benefit locally.  So that is part of the answer. 

And what I have seen in many of the national debates in Africa ‑‑ and the Kenyan debate is very advanced in that regard ‑‑ is shall we put a focus on risks like the Europeans do, or is the focus more on economic growth and innovation?  And I do see that the bias is, in Africa, much more towards innovation.  Whereas in Europe, the focus of the legislation, the AI Act, is much a risk management solution.  And as the colleague from Bahrain, do we need a law at this stage?  The European approach on AI is putting things into different risk categories.  And when you are dealing with biometric data of the entire population and very private information and so on, that's a high‑risk environment.  So yes, you might want to regulate that.  But you don't want to regulate all the innovators and startups to death, essentially.  So having a tiered approach makes a lot of sense in that way.  And that's maybe part of the answer. 

Maybe the Europeans are focusing a lot of attention on the risk, and I don't see it's as much a priority in other contexts.  I don't say it's not important to address the risk.  As I mention, there's a lot of development happening all the time, and the regulation is longer than the innovation.  Locally with tiered risk management is maybe my recommendation. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you.  Let's go on to Dr. Catherine's question.  She was asking about harmonizing throughout different sectors, whether it's health or economy.  We as parliamentarians usually have these specialized committees, and we would need expertise.  So do you think you can answer that, Ms. Burr? 

>> BECKY BURR: Yes, and thank you for the question.  I feel keenly the pain that you describe in this sort of tension between executive branch, decision‑making, and legislature.  I have been in an executive branch agency and worked in the legislature in the United States.  And let me just say, at ICANN, we don't advocate sort of particular policies or laws or legislation.  But we care very much that when legislatures act, they understand what they are doing and how they are ‑‑ how the Internet works and whether what they are proposing to do will break the Internet and how it will impact it.  So ICANN is very actively engaged whenever it hears about legislation if it can be helpful in providing information and providing training, you know, sort of nonpartisan, not advocating one way or another, but educating.  ICANN is there to do it. 

If your government agencies won't include you in a delegation to ICANN, ICANN has a Fellows programme.  You can apply.  They will provide funding to bring you to an ICANN meeting, financial support, train you, introduce you to people so then you know how to reach out to.  So I am not sure exactly who put on the capacity‑building in Rwanda, but I know they care very much about doing that. 

You have some wonderful women in both of your countries who are very much involved in ICANN, and I will give you their names afterwards, but I bet you know them. 

So I do think it's absolutely important.  Some parliamentarians are ‑‑ have technical backgrounds and understand.  Other parliamentarians see problems and concerns, and they want to respond to it, but they need the tools and information to do that in a way that does no harm.  And that actually solves the problem.  And that ‑‑ if I can just respond to your question, because this is ‑‑ this feels like a deja vu moment.  You may all recall, in the mid‑'90s, when privacy on the Internet became a big thing.  And this debate about do we regulate now, do we wait until we understand it, was a very big deal and some countries took the "don't regulate, let's see what it does, let's focus on the end vision."  Some countries took the "let's focus on harms."  I think there's a balance that you need to apply, which is if you can identify the risk there, can you identify principles that will guide your thinking and your regulation and your governance and the way that you enforce laws that are on the books.  So I think it's critical for every legislature to be thinking about the principles that affect AI.  I am not sure that it's ‑‑ there's a very big risk that you develop technology‑specific legislation that locks you into a particular way of thinking about technology, which changes so rapidly so that you pass a law and it is outdated the moment it's signed into law.  There's a lot of risk about that.  But having sound grounding in principles.  And the work that UNESCO is doing on principles for AI, for example, is very important work.  So I do think that in some of the most risky areas, you know, doing something like a serious principles‑based review makes sense.  But in other areas, you might want to let a thousand flowers bloom. 

But this tension, the tension of sort of when do you act, what is it too early to act and when is it too late to act?  If we study what's happened in data protection, I think it gives us a very important lesson in how complicated it is to get that exactly right. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you.  Thank you.  So I guess when you speak about ICANN having that facilitating role, the facilitators, that would probably answer Dr. Mr. Haji's question about how capacity building should be a collaborate effort between different entities. 

>> BECKY BURR: And I am happy to provide information on our Fellows programme.  Because you get one parliamentarian to come, and that provides a way for us to get to know you, you to get to know us, and we can provide the resources. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you, thank you. 

Mr. Cedric, could you also elaborate on Dr. Jamaal's question on regulation on AI.  As well as Catherine, when she talked about how do we deal with harms?  How can we strengthen the laws? 

>> CEDRIC WACHHOLZ: Thank you so much.  So I am astonished to hear that the private sector in the morning said that there's no need for regulation.  Because I think what we hear also from the private sector is really a strong need for clarity.  It is not always laws, necessarily.  But there are many, many examples, and just an easy one from the UNESCO perspective, we work on education.  We have an example, a European country which was working on educational management and information systems in the education system and invited companies to provide solutions.  Who used AI.  Who then became challenging in terms of privacy, in terms of their modalities of return on investment and so on.  And then they wanted to regulate.  And then the private sector said, well, you can't change the rules of the game during the game.  So sometimes the challenges arise and one fully understands, really, only while things are evolving.  And this is not about lawmaking here, but just to point out some of the concrete challenges. 

So I think what the private sector would like, if I may say that, but which you have sometimes stated also from the highest level, is just clarity for them to then be able to move forward. 

Now, in terms of the judiciary also, and this responds also partly to the question or the points from Kenya.  But not only.  UNESCO has developed a network of 36,000 judicial operators ‑‑ meaning judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and so on ‑‑ who we are training.  And eight and a half thousand have been trained on AI and digital transformation.  I think the last workshop was actually about two weeks ago in Kenya with 35 judges.  So there are existing laws which can be used to also limit some of the risks and the harms.  And we have a lot of ‑‑ we have many toolkits.  We have MOOCs.  So online learning platforms.  But also many webinars and so on for judges and face‑to‑face training and regional trainings to see, for example, how, with human rights law, you can actually already make decisions, and there are a lot of case studies which have been published in the global circuit.  So this is on the judiciary because you asked that question too. 

But in terms of capacity development, also for Kenya, again, we are having a big project with other UN agencies too, where we will have also a MOOC for parliamentarians in the mid of '25.  This is the aim.  So this is an online training.  It will just be 12 hours, so it's not too comprehensive.  But six modules which give a good base, I think. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you very much for your answer. 

I think Ms. Olga, you wanted to add something? 

>> OLGA SKOROKHODOVA: Yeah, I wanted to also provide the privacy perspective on the regulation, whether this is the time or not the time to regulate.  Our ‑‑ and again, I am speaking on behalf of a public‑private sector, right.  But it's very short.  AI is too important not to regulate, but it's also too important not to regulate well.  That's our motto, the motto of Google. 

And then also the approach towards regulation that we suggest to consider is really both responsible, bold, and together.  That's basically responsible means putting responsibility really at the front and centre.  Then bold meaning really thinking strategically about where we can use AI for development and use it well.  And then together meaning the dialogue.  In terms of whether this is the right time to go after hard regulation or not, I think this is really eventually down to the countries to decide.  We were very actively involved in the discussion around European AI Act that has just been adopted, and we generally support the risk‑based approach.  However, we also see that many countries ‑‑ and I just had today in the morning a meeting with the Saudi Data & AI Authority.  They definitely don't want to go after hard regulation.  But rather ‑‑ that's very interesting, by the way, approach.  They are very, very involved in discussions around standards.  And several representatives of the authority are actually chairing the groups that are developing standards for AI certification that are really just coming up, you know, being released now.  That's also an approach. 

So we, as a company, definitely want to share our expertise.  We see different models across the world.  But really, striking this balance between responsible, bold, and together, this is difficult, but it's something that we really need to, I guess, you know, do together.  Yeah. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you.  Thank you.  All right.  I think we have time to wrap up with just two more questions, and then we can have our final. 

Yeah.  Your name, please. 

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I am from Qatar Council.  I thank the Kingdom, Government, and people ‑‑

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Sorry, just give you a minute. 

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I will just wait for the headsets.  All languages are available. 

The subject ‑‑ I want to put some points, not to make a long explanation.  As some of my colleagues from member parliaments explain that the parliaments, they don't have background about AI, not that much about AI.  So it would be great if to have cooperation between the parliamentarian union and AU, UNESCO, or whatever, any concern over stakeholders. 

Second, we are not only here about the security of the ‑‑ or how to protect the private data.  But in the Middle East, especially in the DCC, we have a legacy which we want to protect and maintain from some interventions, not only to protect data.  Data protection is just a part.  We belong to many other things that might be meaningless to other organisations that much.  But alliance may be to other legions, like conservative and Christianity. 

Also, we have our own legacy we have to protect.  This is one of the considerations when conducting studies or projects using the private sector.  When there was talk about private sector in the previous session about Meta, Meta has scandal in many instances.  Let's talk about their scandals in the past. 

Telegram, they have some issues in France.  And it has been banned by the French authority's order.  So these points need to be considered, not just protecting the private data, but also I propose here to have a cooperation between the parliaments and the GCC.  For GCC, without exception, tremendous efforts to protect and preserve the security of AI, and not only for that.  We will not mind to use the technology and give back to Council.  But however, there is always the private sector has other objectives.  I don't want to talk about the other issue, but the private sector to consider this.  And the proposal to be between the EU and the concerned organisations, like UNESCO, with other parliaments and GCC in particular.  Because with due respect to other parliaments, they have gone fast steps in this respect. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you so much. 

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I just want to let you know, since you are in Saudi again, we have the agency that's called SDAIA, which is Saudi Data and AI ‑‑ or Artificial Intelligence ‑‑ Authority.  And we have many laws already in place.  One is data classification policy and regulations regarding AI.  Personal Data Protection Law and the implementation regulation.  It was already last year approved in our Parliament, all of these.  Rules of Procedures on Commitments for Reviewing Violations of the Provisions of Personal Data Protection Laws and its implementing regulations.  Also, we have rules for appointing personal data protection officer ‑‑ yeah, officer.  Data sharing policy and regulations, and so on and on.  So my point, you have almost all the infrastructure, and maybe in Sadiya, they have so‑called readiness report and they are working with UNESCO or UN. 

So we already have some drafts with AI, but at the same time, we have a lot of discussions regarding to approve or not to approve.  You know, there are two scores.  We are trying to be in the middle now to see what will happen.  But we have almost all these regulations and policies, we have ethical policies and so on.  So I just want to show you what we have in Saudi Arabia. 

And also, again, the problem is not only the data, as you know.  We mentioned this before.  It's the processing of data, which is the brain, which is the algorithms.  So in Google or Meta or Twitter or X or whatever, this is the most important that maybe next we will see what these joint companies or big companies will do to be more transparent with the parliaments of different countries.  And also with the governments and with the people, first of all.  Thank you very much. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you.  Thank you very much. 

So I think I will direct the question for Dr. Badii to Mr. Cedric because he spoke about how parliaments need more capacity‑building skills, and he wants more collaborations with the European Union or the United Nations or UNESCO.  And between parliaments themselves.  And he specified having more collaborations between the GCC parliaments because their objectives are usually very similar and their needs are.  So could you answer that, Mr. Cedric? 

>> CEDRIC WACHHOLZ: We are, of course, delighted to work with Qatar, and I think we do have a comparative advantage as a neutral broker.  We have no vested interest.  We are civil servants and try to bring a multi‑stakeholder approach to the table that, in the end, we have no vested interest in that. 

For Qatar, we had already four trainings of judges, 60, 70 people.  So it's very popular.  It's a different domain, but just to say we are involved in some capacity development, and we will be happy to extend to broader parliamentarian group and work.  And we really are delighted about this cooperation and to strengthen it, including with Qatar. 

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off microphone). 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: All right.  So the last question from Dr. Saleh is the problem of the processing of data and whether any or most of these companies can do more to be more transparent.  Ms. Olga? 

>> OLGA SKOROKHODOVA: Thank you so much for this question and for really describing that well the Saudi Arabia approach so far towards regulation. 

In terms of transparency, an algorithmic transparency; right?  I think that's the question is around it.  I think there are two aspects that are important.  Algorithms, at the end of the day, is also commercial information.  Right?  And this is a very competitive space.  Google and other companies, we are competing with each other.  So yes, of course, there is this aspect that needs to be taken into account.  Full disclosure of algorithm is commercial secrecy.  That's one question ‑‑ that's one aspect. 

On the other side, we do see that there is more requirements, and I think we are moving towards really disclosing more information about how we are working and what is in, goes into the algorithm.  But also ‑‑ and I think this is really underappreciated ‑‑ how much users who use our products can actually be part of it. 

Can you raise your hand if you checked your ‑‑ if you use YouTube, if you checked your YouTube settings recently.  Last quarter?  Oh, we have at least one person.  But actually, actually, inside the products such as YouTube, you have a lot of ‑‑ as a user, a lot of tools how you can minimize, you know, algorithm, let's say, interference in your user experience.  And in fact, if you don't want to see any algorithm recommendations on YouTube, you can now just turn it off.  And I think this is something that some fans, if not maybe on the spotlight, but actually, users are also part of that story.  But definitely as an industry, we hear and we see there is more push towards transparency.  And I think that we are making good progress towards disclosing more, as much as we can, while staying still competitive in this very much competitive space. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: All right.  Thank you.  So I hope our experts gave the proper answers that everybody was looking for.  We have a couple of minutes, and I would ‑‑ if it is possible for each panelist to give any final messages in two minutes or less.  We'll start with Mr. Cedric. 

>> CEDRIC WACHHOLZ: There are many ways forward, and I would just like to warmly invite you to join us in Paris on 4th and 5th June, where we have a capacity development event on AI and digital transformation in the public sector, including parliamentarians. 

And also end of June, last week of June in Thailand, our Global Forum on the Ethics of AI, for those who want to continue building their capacities. 

And I just wanted to thank all of you on behalf of UNESCO for this great panel, but also for all the interest.  And we are very happy to work with all of you closely.  Thank you. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you.  Becky? 

>> BECKY BURR: Yeah.  There are enormous amounts of resources out there.  It can be very difficult to find them.  But I think if you identify trusted sources ‑‑ UNESCO is ‑‑ has done some, as I said, some wonderful work in this area. 

You know, AI is the hot topic, the flavor of the month.  But it's very closely connected to all of the other kinds of regulatory concerns that we have.  So I think looking at it simply in a vacuum could lead us into trouble.  And it's important to look at it in context.  Understand what laws you have on the books right now.  So Saudi Arabia does have new data protection law that has benefitted from years of development of data protection law and reflects best practices up to the moment.  Very new. 

So you can learn also from the work of other parliaments, what's worked, what hasn't worked.  And I think I just want to say to the extent that I am here representing ICANN, with respect to the Internet address and data technology, we are here to help.  Also, there are lots of resources out there.  And I know how important it is to get those resources in a digestible way so that you are not wading through oceans.  I think it behooves all of us to provide some information on where to look and be responsive when you need it. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you.  Thank you.  Franz? 

>> FRANZ VON WEIZSAECKER: Thank you.  So the Internet is global, and legislation is national.  That creates an inherent tension in all of our efforts.  And it creates the need to put efforts into harmonization.  It will never be 100% harmonized world for sure, legislatively.  But a certain degree of harmonization, a rough consensus, a dialogue between different stakeholder groups, informed policy‑making, coordinated policy‑making has a huge benefit to economic development and development of the Internet to the Internet not falling apart, as our colleagues from ICANN know very well.  That is why we very much support the international coordination efforts at the level of the African Union and its Regional Economic Communities and Member States.  And we do believe that only when there is a coordinated effort, also the negotiating power of individual countries, vice versa, global companies, global platforms, is improving.  If one small company makes a difficult regulation, the big tech titans might just switch off the service in that country and end of story, and nobody is benefitted from it.  So ‑‑ but if there is a coordinated approach roughly aligned, regulatory frameworks for platforms, for data, for AI, that is hugely beneficial for the overall economic benefit as well as to the negotiating power that individual countries have. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you.  Olga, last but not least. 

>> OLGA SKOROKHODOVA: Thank you so much.  I think I would vote for team sport.  Innovation has always been a team sport, and AI is a team sport too.  So getting AI right will be a team effort.  And I think we are on the right track ‑‑ well, at least within this, you know, panel.  And definitely, just to kind of piggyback on the comment of my honorable co‑panelist, for us, the more harmonized approaches, the easier it is to deploy our solutions.  And this is something that we really want you parliamentarians to ask us to support with. 

>> RIMA AL‑YAHYA: Thank you very much.  In conclusion, what we have dealt with this session is building parliamentary capacity to effectively shape the digital realm involves equipping lawmakers and parliamentary institutions, as well as the private sector, with the proper knowledge, the tools, and frameworks necessary to govern and oversee the rapidly evolving digital space.  This will ultimately ensure that digital policies promote inclusivity, innovation, privacy, security, and accountability.  And by this, the desired outcomes will surely be a more enhanced digital sovereignty and an informed decision‑making by lawmakers, as well as inclusive growth that benefits all sectors of society while protecting everyone against misuse and harm. 

That said, I would like to thank all my panelists on their extremely informative contributions.  So please join me in giving a round of applause to our speakers. 

(Applause)

Thank you, thank you for attending. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>> ANDY RICHARDSON:  Good afternoon.  Good afternoon, everybody.  Good afternoon.  If I could just ask everybody to assemble for the final closing of the Parliamentary Track.  My name is Andy Richardson.  I work with the Inter‑Parliamentary Union, the IPU, and we are here with a colleague, Celine Bal from the IGF Secretariat, who has done an absolutely fantastic job in organizing the Parliamentary Track.  Thank you for all of that hard work. 

But also to yourselves.  So the point of this session is to try to draw this extremely rich discussion to a close.  We'd like to introduce to you the output document from the Parliamentary Track.  At the end of each Parliamentary Track at IGF, we try to capture the main recommendations coming out of your discussions.  Why?  So that what you have said can echo beyond this room.  It can echo across the IGF as a whole.  But also to take back to your parliaments.  And across the UN system. 

So earlier this afternoon, we shared a first draft of the output document based on what you discussed yesterday and this morning.  You've been seen taking notes this afternoon on the discussion.  Some of you may have had an opportunity to see that document already.  Or will discover it shortly. 

Essentially, the recommendations come in three groups.  There are lots of recommendations for parliaments themselves.  As we know, parliaments are complex organisations.  And you, as the members of parliament here at the IGF, are somehow the key actors in this process.  Because you have the knowledge and the skills from this meeting to go back and speak with your colleagues, in your parliaments, to speak with your governments as well. 

The recommendations for parliaments that we have picked up fall into three main areas.  One is working together to advance global cooperation on digital policy, and particularly making sure that parliaments are involved in the global processes at the Internet Governance Forum, at the WSIS+20 review, at the ongoing discussions on AI governance.  Parliaments have to be part of this conversation as well. 

The second is we've heard a lot about working together at regional level to define, together with parliaments in the same regions, what are your common priorities, and to see if you can work together towards coordination and harmonization of legislation within your regions based on your own priorities.  Then the third big area is strengthening parliaments themselves, how your parliaments work.  So making sure that you are having an active and ongoing dialogue with youth.  Taking a wide range of perspectives.  But also from different stakeholders from the IGF community.  So the technical community, academia, civil society, and importantly, as we were hearing here, the private sector as well.  So that as you work on legislation, as you work in your parliamentary committees, you are hearing a range of inputs to make the best possible legislative decisions. 

So the output document also has a series of recommendations targeted particularly at the UN system.  We've had representatives here from the ITU, telecommunications, UNDP, UNESCO, Global Digital Compact, and others.  I think the unanimous message from you was that you are asking these organisations to do more to make sure that parliaments are involved.  But also the unanimous message from these organisations themselves was that they are ‑‑ they want to do this.  They are open to working with parliaments.  So we have to find ways to make that connection better. 

And that's where the third basket of recommendations comes to the IGF, to the IPU, to try to help to make these connections.  As one of the delegates said just now, there are a huge range of resources that are available.  Now, I wonder, as a question, to what extent these resources are already tailored to the specific needs of parliamentarians.  Possibly not yet, but I am sure that they can be adapted to meet your needs.  And then maybe we can work together to try to build that capacity. 

Really listening to you, I was very much struck by two big themes that seem to have emerged.  One is capacity, building your own capacity in parliament, both you, the people here, but your wider community of colleagues.  So we collectively need to work together to do a better job. 

And the second is this ongoing discussion around artificial intelligence.  Which is, as we know, a new and emerging and continually evolving subject.  And genuinely an open challenge, an open question to parliaments on what to do and how.  A question that our colleague from Bahrain was raising.  At what moment?  So part of our job at the IPU is to provide a platform for exchange of experience that, in this parliament, we are doing this, and this is what we learned in this parliament.  We are doing it this way.  To try to connect the parliaments together. 

Many of you will know that in October of this year, the Inter‑Parliamentary Union adopted a resolution tied on the impact of AI democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.  So there was a strong commitment to work together, to build capacity, to exchange experience, and to make sure that the legislative frameworks in your countries are able to protect the rights and freedoms of the people that you represent in this digital era. 

So in a nutshell, the output document contains these ideas. 

We have an opportunity here to take any further feedback and suggestions.  We've received some already by email.  Thank you for those, which will be taken onboard.  But we have an opportunity to, let's say, finalize the document here.  And then it will be presented to the Closing Plenary of the IGF on Thursday as a result of your deliberations in the Parliamentary Track. 

I'll stop here and invite Celine from the IGF Secretariat to say a couple more words about the next steps.  And then I'll open the floor for any further message you may have. 

>> CELINE BAL:  Thank you very much, everyone.  First I would like to sincerely thank you for the collaboration we have with the Inter‑Parliamentary Union already.  It's been a couple of years.  Also to the Saudi Council for the excellent collaboration we have had this year.  You will be missed. 

Also to Afnan.  I am not sure if she is now in the room. 

(Applause)

Yes.  We just wanted to thank you for all the work that you've been doing. 

>> (Off microphone). 

>> CELINE BAL:  She is the boss.  Of course. 

First and foremost, for all those who attended this year's Parliamentary Track, it is really a community like you that makes the IGF Parliamentary Track lively and needed.  So we do hope that you enjoyed the past two days.  That you enjoyed the sessions.  And we really invite you also to take part in our parliamentary activities also in the upcoming years, not only at the global IGF, but also the regional IGFs we have and the national and subregional ones.  I am going to go into that a little bit later. 

Of course, what is important to us is that you do connect amongst each other.  That you take something concrete home to your parliament.  And also that you have an access to speakers.  And this is where I come to my other point, where we have a very large and global community of experts, where you can always tap into.  So please do not hesitate to reach out, in case you have seen some speakers that you are interested in, you know, further connecting with.  Reach out to us, and we are more than glad to make the connection. 

Before I go to the IGF 2025 cycle, I would still like to remind you that tomorrow we do have a Parliamentary Roundtable that will take place in the Plenary Hall, so not here, but in the Plenary Hall, from 3:15 to 4:15, one and a half hours, on "A powerful collective force for change, parliamentarians for a prosperous global digital future." 

And we know that the IGF 2024 did not end yet, but as you may know, the IGF 2025 will come rather soon next year, already end of June, and host is going to be Norway.  So tomorrow, for example, there will be a member of Parliament from Norway who will also be part of the panel.  And would like for you to mark your calendars for end of June 2025.  It will take place in Oslo.  The date's yet to be confirmed.  But you can mark the last week of June. 

And before that, so to let you know a little bit also about the process of the IGF.  We have a very vast network of national, subregional, and regional IGFSA ‑‑ IGFs.  Basically, it starts with the regional IGF.  So for example, Ghana taking place at the very beginning of the IGF cycle.  Leading then to the subregional IGF, such as the sub‑Saharan or Korean IGF.  Then continuing to the regional ones, so really we have the Latin manager and Korean IGF that takes place, the Asia Pacific, all culminating to the global one.  And we try actively to also develop parliamentary tracks at the more regional IGFs, but it's also a call to you to be more active at the national ones. 

In case you are interested, please do reach out to us, and we can gladly connect you to the coordinators of the various IGFs that we have.  Currently, over 170 of them. 

Also, something that is close to our heart, we have a mailing list.  We have, as I said, the expert community that can be very helpful for you.  And also, something that I wanted to share with you.  The programme that we normally build for members of parliaments is really based on the input from you.  It is close to our heart that we are not doing a top‑down programme, that we tell you this is going to take place next year.  But that it is a consultative process.  So in case you have any feedback that you would like to share, some topics that you would really like to discuss also a little bit more in depth next year, please do share this with us.  And we will gladly integrate them during the development of the programme. 

Now I would suggest, in case you have any final comments, questions whatsoever, please let us know.  We still have, I think, a couple of minutes before we close the Parliamentary Track today. 

Yes, Catherine, please. 

>> CATHERINE: Thank you.  I have sent my comments to you.  And I am just reminded that the IPU is also ‑‑ also has developed the Charter on Science and Technology, which, in my view, is relevant, but you only made reference to the resolution.  So I don't know whether you might want to include that.  But I have given you my comments in writing. 

>> CELINE BAL: Thank you.  We will take that into account. 

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I come from Argentina.  In the document, it caught my attention that you were only referring to ‑‑ sorry, I took notes not to forget.  But some of the questions to take into account, it was disinformation.  And when talking about inequality, you were only talking about gender gap.  But we were also talking about the inequality in terms of the employees.  So yes, and one of them would be the gender gap.  So I think that inequalities and disinformation, we should also refer to cybersecurity somehow because we can't talk about governance in AI if we don't have data governance and cybersecurity. 

Furthermore, reference to sustainability and the opportunity that AI generates so we can reduce the CO2 footprint in terms of digital matters.  And also the development of how this world generates, as well, a footprint.  So I think these are topics that could be mentioned. 

And also one more thing that is not as important but is related as well.  I think that definitely in all the sessions, we were talking about whether we should regulate or not and how much.  But definitely today, the digital and virtual worlds are part ‑‑ are just one world with ‑‑ it's two sides of the coin.  And we are now citizens that are made of skin and bones, and we are digital as well.  And also, we believe that the human being should be in the centre, as well as the dignity should be in the centre of all these regulations.  And technologies should be a tool that serves humanity.  And therefore, the human rights should be also in the framework that we work with.  Thank you. 

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi.  Thank you.  On point one, it's where can a minimum code of ethics for technologies that can be used and implemented by all countries based on a human rights approach?  And then point two, share their strategies with mixes of parliamentarian strategies on how is the best way to legislate the digital agenda and draft guidance and good practices on this matter.  That is related of the panel I am on.  Thank you. 

>> ANDY RICHARDSON: Thank you very much.  I see we have a few hands.  So the gentleman here, then the lady up front. 

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you.  I know that you have thanked the Saudi authorities, particularly the parliaments of Saudi.  I would like to thank you again.  These last few days, you have shattered a few stereotypes, and you have endeared your country and parliament to us.  I would like to come over and over again.  Thank you to you. 

We must also thank the body IPU and the IGF Secretariat.  Thank you.  I don't know where you get your energy from.  We are extremely very grateful to the parliamentarians for the coordination you have done, particularly the logistics to get us here. 

Also comments.  Number one, in order to ensure that this document, the outcome we are developing, the same way communication was made to the heads of parliament to invite us here, I also would suggest that the same communication that was co‑signed by the head of Saudi, IPU, IGF, if you also send the same thing back to heads of parliaments across the world to say at the conclusion of the Parliamentary Track, these were the outcomes.  Which allows that these come to enjoy the leadership of the parliament across the world, and parliamentarians can therefore do some follow‑up. 

The second suggestion I would like to make, a number of organisations came, and they let us know the capacity building that I have.  I mean, we listen to ITU.  We listen to the world body of IGF.  I also suggest the body IGF and IPU curate all these materials and send to the parliamentarians.  So at the regional level, the general level, we may want to engage some of these resources and see what kind of capacity building can begin to take place at those levels.  Again, I would like to thank you.  And I also see the commitment of parliamentarians. 

>> ANDY RICHARDSON: Thank you.  Excuse me.  Just in response to your colleague.  To note that not only will we inform the speakers of the member of parliaments of IPU.  But in this year in July, there will be the 5th World Conference of Speakers of California parliaments, where we, as IPU, commit to sharing the outcome of your discussions, both here and at the next IGF in Norway will be brought to the attention to the speakers, where there will be a panel dedicated to the topic "Shaping our digital1 futures."  With high‑level discussions with world's speakers of parliament.  Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you.  I lead the Q of M Parliament.  I highlight everything my colleague said before.  So I don't need to mention those proposals, too, that were the same as mine.  But I just want to add one more proposal.  What's going to happen tomorrow?  What are we going to do tomorrow and the days after this session until the next session?  We all have something to share.  And we all have some need, some training need or elements that we were talking about, lessons learned, good practices.  So maybe we should work in doing some mapping of the needs of each parliament and to see which parliamentary group can offer.  So this could be a tool that could be useful so we can keep working, collaborating, incorporating, and sharing all these lessons learned as well as good practices. 

>> CELINE BAL: Thank you very much.  In response, what we try to do, especially in this year, after the IGF Parliamentary Track ends, we put as an annex some suggested sessions that will take place at the IGF and organized by some IGF session organizers, community members.  Also, with the aim of including more parliamentarians in the discussions, not only here, part of the Parliamentary Track, but also with community members.  But we take note, and we will think about how to, you know, improve for next year.  Thank you. 

>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you very much for the track, and I would love to thank Celine, a special thanks for her. 

I would second what Honorable Shuaib said.  Actually, I said the same suggestion in the last session.  Because we need to gather up all the initiatives and programmes that are tailored for parliamentarians and to be sent to us, please, if this is possible. 

And actually, you talked about a platform that ITU is making to compare the legislations from different parliaments and the best practices, especially in the new legislations.  That would be extremely helpful.  But please share it with us.  Thank you. 

 

>> CELINE BAL: Thank you very much.  We took notes.  Again, we remain available via email.  We look forward to the session tomorrow.  For those who are already leaving a little bit earlier, please have safe travels.  Those who are staying until the end of IGF, please enjoy not only the IGF, but also Riyadh.  Thank you so much. 

>> ANDY RICHARDSON: A special thank you to everyone, the Council, everyone have a good night.