IGF 2025 - Day 2 - Workshop Room 4 - Launch Award Event #159 Book launch NETmundial10 Statement in the 6 UN languages

>> RENATA MIELLI: Good morning and welcome to our session, which has kind of a long title, but will impact later.

My name is Renata Mielli. I work with DiploFoundation platform. What we call classic in internet governance, Introduction to Internet Governance, book first published '04.

Past years, published many languages used as textbooks in many universities around the world. I have quite a lot of people that told me this is how I start learning about intergovernment governance, through your book and through some of the forces, so congrats for that as well, and so today launching new edition of this book. By the about a and while he will to so he will also explain probably one of the controversy things has been discussed this space for the last two years intergovernment governance is digital governance, end economy between them or not, and why is Jovan still calling his book Introduction to Intergovernment Governance and is talking about AI governance, data governance, digital governance, bunch of other stuff. I'm not very good in phrasing. I should have prepared a little speech, but really, I do encourage everyone to take a look at this short excerpt and then the book will be available soon online.

Have a colleagues list going around. Share your email addresses, share the full book with you. And over to you.

Why did you still want to write a book how many years after the previous editions?

>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Why intergovernment governance? Fortunately, that's done. Last edition was 2016 and it helps some people to understand what is going on to get into intergovernment governance. Enough. Seventh edition. Translated in 11 languages and I was proud.

Jean Carlos Ferreira dos Santos, this book helped me to get into intergovernment governance and digital governance. Biggest achievement in my career. Could sound small thing but remarkable. Sometimes this book started, first edition, started when probably you heard it when friends of mine, telling them what I was doing, they were inviting me to install their software and fix their printer 23 or 24 years. Not exactly what I'm doing years ago.  Then explain what it is about. Two years ago, AI wave, I realized that confusion is increasing and I said, wow, I should again get back and writing something.

Then I'm a born procrastinator. Took time. Bit lazy. Then AI helped. Tell you how AI helped me. Not written by AI., don't worry, but I came an said okay, I will write this edition, and then I started writing it. Realized that once partly wrote, and it became obsolete by basically when the ink dried. Said, I cannot write this way. I have to invent something else.

I used Chinese Japanese word Kaizan. Explains constant improvements and constant development. Therefore, one interesting aspect before I move to the book. This is how I did it. I said, okay I cannot write it. Sent to editors. Spent two years. Everything will be different in a digital world.

Frankly speaking, most digital AI books these days are becoming obsolete before they're published. Whole graveyards. Academia thinking the way of publishing.

How I did it, I have IG book, my starting point. It has to be revisited and I will focus on changes over nine years, which is important to see things into perspective. And I said, I will use AI via Diplo, developed model based on my writing and Zoom calls and my way of framing issues, how I do. Am I inductee or deductive thinking? What type of sentences I use, long and short. What type of condensed music in writing I've been using. Okay, let me use it. At least nobody can blame me, book written by AI because I wrote 7 editions.

Then I realized, okay, what we have to do is to have one point in time, this is this point, closure, and this is why a printed version is useful. You create closure. At this point, this is my thinking.

In June, 2025, on issues of AI governance, digital governance, cybersecurity, continuous updates, publishing style, AI going on the net. Here is an article in academia policy statement, that WSIS, constant updates till the moment that you create again closure, and this is basically how the publishing works.

Now, I've also begun a leg in academic community, research community will have to go profound change because of impact of AI. Old way of publishing isn't going to work. We need prior review. Need quality control, checking things, not before book publishing takes one‑and‑a‑half years from the book expert, by book register, by signing, and receive a link to the online version which you can download. And you will receive also link to a space, continues until updates are done.

Let me give you one example. Had a section on the WSIS, future of WSIS, and I covered more or less all aspects, but then you come here and you have completely new insights, you have new views. And then what I wrote is my summary of the future of WSIS. 10 days ago, already obsolete since final menial arguments, new metaphors, new framework particularly officious on the framing, framing of the issues.

For example, on the parameters, how we deal with the policy dynamic is critical. This is history of survey how the book started and why I decided to write start writing two years ago, because the confusion around AI is enormous. Sort it out somehow.

Then I said, okay how to call the book. My friend is a brand specialist, don't call it intergovernment governance. Nobody knows what is internet. Everything is digital. AI governance. Cutting edge governance, this and that. I said, okay. That's a legitimate point. And then I started moving in very semantical knowledge very beginning of the publication, answered question why it is still Internet Governance.

Went into analysis and, you know, I like to use pyramids, went to the basic terminology information and communication technology, anything from the pigeon to the telegraph till AI, and if you see, UN still using ICTs. Interesting. UN is basically, most precise broader terms, move up, you have electric signals. Telegraph basically. Then you move up, have digital, zeros and ones. Then you move up, you come to internet, and up, you come to AI.

Now, calling it ICT would be too broad. Calling it electric would be also too broad. Digital was a candidate. I had a dilemma between digital and internet arguments for both.

My arguments for internet prevailed because most of the governance issues related to digital are related to internet. Yes, you can have AI far more, you can have whatever, but ultimately, it comes to us through TCIP through internet protocol TCIP. This information, e‑commerce governance, everything else. Deliver I think internet is still least imprecise, therefore, I think description what we are discussing today, digital would be correct but broader. Logic if you can find a specific term, use a specific term. Don't go for broader terms.

As you know, confusion is you have AI governance, cyber governance, and digital. You know how it works. Academics want to create a new research field, book, just invent new terms. Policymakers want to make initiative to become AI ambassador, digital ambassador, other things. How it is. Very human, put it this way. Therefore, that could be an interesting point. If you agree with my point, why I still call it internet governance, not digital governance, not AI governance. Although, advice from the brand advisor was to use AI governance because it's the very topic.

Now, in the book, I start with my old, I should have used Powerpoint, my building, building with 7 floors, 50 issues. And then the first part is internet evolution.

Here is a fascinating insight. Sometimes obsessed that everything is happening now and here is a business of narcism. Very natural. I'm sorry. Excited. World is changing. Part of the process. Everything is happening here. When you really step back, you realize few things. Technological governance is very, let's say, constant race across the time.

I'll give you two examples. Nowadays we discuss, impact of the Trump administration on digitalization AI, but if you really analyze, you can see that U.S. digital policy has not changed since, and I'm highlighting, since 1892, nineteenth century, when United States joined the St. Petersburg meeting of International Communication Union. Rhetoric is the same. Innovation, low governance, business interests. At that time in the other blocks, European countries, postal telegraph unions. UK, Frances, Germany, between two actors.

Fast forward, the change, US policy was so‑called Titanic moment. They decided because of shear power of the shock that Titanic sinking created, they decided to adopt radio telecommunication still in the force today. Apparently, increasingly controversial because of satellites business.

Now, fast forward, you come to 1998, and all digital, internet, ICT governance regimes we discussed today were set within the three months of 1998, in September, beginning of September 1998, Google was established, third week of the September 1998. Table cybersecurity resolution on the 30^th September, 1998, which led to the UN government group of expert open‑ended working group, the process which is still going on. I think next week, there be a meeting.

WTO in the same last week. 1998, September 1998, decided moratorium on custom duties, e‑commerce. Later, in November 1998, IT held a meeting, WSIS step back. Frankly speaking, those pillars with IT or e‑commerce, UNFG for cybersecurity icon for the names and numbers and digital governance are still in place till today.

First really strong, it called for all of us not to be overly impressed by immediate even if it looks drastic. Everything is changing, pushing the frontier. Not everything will be the same.

We need new governance new technology, rhetorics, how it goes. Not as dramatic it looks. Two examples. US digital policy and Autumn 1998, basis for it.

Fast forward, 2016, when I published last edition of my book. Now I compare what's happened in the meantime and I realize there were basically four main developments. First one, massive shift of data from our personal computers to cloud. Started before in social media. Accelerated over last nine years. Enormous consequences for governance, freedom, knowledge, policy.

Second one, COVID pandemic which accelerated this surprise, we have to move online and work online. Another one is shift from GPU, CPS, central processing unit dominated space to GPU and made people from NVIDIA central processing unit. Intel and AMD and others dominated.

GPU individual started developing for games, got the first boost with Bitcoin, blockchain and another boost later on with AI. That's major shift I will say in basis. Satellite connectivity, low orbit satellites, artifical intelligence, go through each of these, you can see longterm trajectories, not just shift data towards cloud as enormous impact on digital governance.

What's happening in the governance field? First, UN started, and I was part of the process, with high level panel, started this panel process. I know have many criticism, now it's still with GDC versus elephant in the room, small big one, I don't know, I was part of that process when I had a chance to influence some discussions.

I was always insisting that we need evolution, not revolution, we need IGF plus exits, not to reboot everything. But what I have to highlight for the intergovernment governance community, there was a need for something like this. This was a bit of, sometimes you cannot go into rationale decisions. We have IGF, we have WSIS, yes. We have that, but policy and politics is sometimes irrational.

You need new energy. You need a boost. People asking diplomat, we need to do something specially with this digital governance, what I'm going to report back to the capitol. GDC and that process that was started in 2018 was needed. I wish we could have steered it by the more convergence element. That's for another discussion.

Then we had AI safety lines with confidence. 2003, AI, magic, going to kill, humanity. We have to be careful, we need regulation. AI is like atomic nuclear energy, nuclear bomb, all of this.  metaphors that are used by thousands of scientists, ban development of AI, all of that. Sitting at the gallery thinking, my God, how far is it going to go? Discussion became completely irrational.

Come down and that entertainment, Bletchley summit safety of AI, if you follow just that, you can see how AI evolved. Bletchley security, doomsday scenario, large language models and, basically, main tech companies, we know how dangerous it is. We want governments to regulate, to stop developments, and to trust us, that we will save humanity.

Ultimately for different reasons, we didn't react to that. Then there was a confidence came down in Paris. Removed Bletchley, this line of thinking. Why is this important? Yes, AI is important and that evolution is another elephant in the room. We have longterm risks, but we have to judge these risks in the context.

What are the immediate risks for education system, any mention for publishing processing, way of justifying through peer review, our thinking, and validity in academic world, jobs and other issues. Those are immediate risks. Midterm risks, human concentration of our nation in hands of a few companies. Highlighting knowledge, not data. Very important. Come back to this knowledge, data dynamics.

Then you have the third point, yes, longterm risks, they exist. AI may destroy us. May get power. We can discuss that. Very controversial topic. Let's discuss it in an informed way. There are tools like climate change tools where you can discuss it in an informed way. AI panel, which UN is proposing, is a good way to have a reasonable discussion in this context.

Then we have NVIDIA. Shift from data to knowledge, WSIS document, knowledge, knowledge, no data here and there. Today's documents are full of data, no knowledge. AI is about knowledge. Think about that shift, why we kicked out knowledge from the policy documents and why we replaced with data. Interesting point.

Last point before is geopolitics. The internet started most by geopolitics. Sputnik moment 1957, 4 October, US political elite thought, wrongly so, that they were losing the scientific competition to the Soviet UN. They created NASA and one of the most fascinating scientific projects that started with the Soviet Union during Kennedy's time in the United States. Think about that carefully, we are closing the circuit digital and internet is becoming again a geopolitical issues with negative consequences, but also some reality check.

And that is basically the last point in this summary which you can find in the book. Shift from, let's say major vested center shaped discussion towards more Asia, Latin America, Africa also coming, shaping of narratives. Narratives are the key. Use of metaphors, other issues.

Find in the book knowledge of narratives. We can discuss AI if you want to see deeper through the narratives on that point. I advise you to follow Diplo reporting from this meeting which, among other things, have two elements you will get end of the reporting. One is cliche detector. How many cliches are repeated during meeting and not narrative shaping. What are the narratives met for used to shape? That's basically the toolkit, swiss knife for digital governance.

Get the toolkit somebody used the metaphor. You know why that person is using a metaphor. What is the policy behind? What is the idea? More inclusive informed impactful digital governance.

>> RENATA MIELLI: Three more minutes. That's going to be a challenge. If anyone in the room wants to add some sort of reflections on what he has been saying, ask a question. We have a short time. Anyone? If not, we encourage you to join us at our booth to continue to the conversation there.

I don't remember the number of the booth. Colleague is there. You also shared 40‑something? You shared the list with emails, so we will be sending the link to all of you who have registered. If you don't, we have a few copies of the excerpt of the book here if you would like to get it.

Thank you so much everyone. Thank you Jovan and please join us at the booth.