The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> SOFIE SCHONBORN: Wonderful. Welcome, everybody. Welcome to the round table for Leveraging Tech & Science Diplomacy for the Digital Cooperation. The think tank is a part of the Global Network and OC which is bringing all of us here together today. I'm happy to moderate today's round table and kick us off into today's session.
Science & tech diplomacy have become buzz words. They are ideas that link science & tech to the world of diplomacy and global governance. As with many other things, there are no universally agreed upon definitions for either of the two or related terms. What have emerged are a couple of common concepts. I wanted to introduce the classification of those to frame the following discussion. The royal society has outlined three dimensions for science, diplomacy in 2010, which are oftentimes referred to. These cover the three terms signs in diplomacy and science and diplomacy.
Science in diplomacy uses the scientific knowledge to inform the policies more broadly. It could be through scientist and technologist and institutions or networks of the institutions. Then we when look at diplomacy for science, it is not just a one‑way street. We can use the diplomatic tools and channels to support the scientific and technological cooperation.
Thirdly, signs for the diplomacy are not in the floor, we see science and technology as soft power for promoting international policy goals and foreign policy agendas, for example, by promoting open values or evidence‑based decision making, but also build bridges in times were diplomatic channels may erode and function for the goals. These dimensions, of course, are super broad. They are not mutually exclusive. I think what they show is there can be a range of actors involved in science and diplomacy and also it covers a range of activities that we can engage in.
Now 2025, IGF, we live in times of geopolitical tensions. We're searching for the trusted partnerships, new alliance, and there's ongoing technological developments and efforts for global digital governance through the IGF, WSIS + 20, and so on. We may be looking at the ideas for what the roles of different stakeholder groups are and how we can contribute to those. We're coming together today to explore with the esteemed speakers and also with the audience.
What's the role of non‑traditional diplomatic actors or actors can be in as soon as and technology diplomacy? Non‑traditional in the sense that we're not looking diplomats and actors from science, Civil Society, the technical communities, and how they can contribute. No easy questions. That's why I'm really happy to have with me such experts from really a range of stakeholder groups and backgrounds.
Briefly introducing by the order of appearance with their inputs, first of all, online, I hope we can see the speakers online. We have joining the European Commission and joining us online, ‑‑ we're seeing someone else up there. I'm really sorry for that. Continue with the introductions and then I hope we can see also the speakers up there. Maricela Munoz with the WEOG and the Geneva Science, and Nele, and here we have Victor Munoz, engineering and former Director General in Colombia. Thank you for being with us here today.
Before we get started, quick notes on housekeeping. We will hear brief interventions, max five minutes from each of the round table speakers. Please in the audience collect your questions. We'll have time for the discussion briefly at the end of the discussion, as this is only 60 minutes, we have to stay close to the schedule.
We have an online moderator for the audience line. Please just put your questions chat. We will hear them here in person. Without further ado, let me start by turning to Nele Leosk to hear how your experience can contribute and what actors can delay and look to in the future.
>> NELE LEOSK: Hello, everybody. Still close and remote. I'm happy to be here. Sofie, you said the governments are traditional actors in active diplomacy. Having being an ambassador, I'm wondering whether governments are already traditional actors in technology diplomacy. Because technology or the role of technology is still quite new, I would say to traditional diplomacy.
It is actually quite a lot has happened in a very, very short time, but still a short time. I will say that any diplomats find themselves in the new role in the current times when private sector and I would say even individual players have so much power. We see they have more power than the traditional actors as governments. I think diplomats also have quite still to do to get used to this new environment and also realise the technology is actually shaping our world. We are shaping it by every day.
But maybe just to come back to your question about what is the role of diplomacy and different actors in this. I think it depend on our starting point. What we actually need to do. So the digital ambassador and that means I come from a very small country. It is tech‑savvy scene known to be the digital leader in deploying technology and, of course, it is not technology in terms of technology and innovation, per se. Technological development still take place in other countries and I would say increasing it be very few countries and companies. So far from the starting point, I would say it is maybe twofold.
First, of course, we are ‑‑ we have an working and will work for what we call the democratic development of the digitalisation. We want to have the virtual world be open and secure and all of the nice things. We are fighting here at the idea. Also but I would say increasingly more that really becomes an understanding and the work that we need to do in order to make sure that everybody in our society and everybody here in Estonia. I put the Europe aside for today. I will focus perhaps on Estonia and what other means that the small country really has.
Of course, as you also mentioned, one line of work is really the technology governance. How we are supposed to use technologies. We know what we do in our country, and we have in Europe the European Union and the plays a big role in shaping the virtual space and it is quite known for its regulatory activity, but not only and now we have the global development. I do have to admit that when I look at, for example, the global compact and the other process and that we all know they are part of the government or to the private sector that is actually quite complex to follow these basically. I look, for example, on the private sector and academia and Estonia. Here we'll say that traditional actors need to collaborate closely with the traditional actors as you categorise them. What we have said in Estonia, I would say the network and the private sector players. We also had some of the small institutionalised ways to share information with each other and we had the diplomacy coordination council also that included all of the main players outside of the government the way that we would share what's hamming and they would also reflect back on the needs.
But, the second component as I started and I know that I have only four minute. I will close it here. Just that the remark is really building the partnerships that support our partners. Are they in academia or in private sector or are they in NGOs? Here I would say that looking from the government perspective and let's say the diplomat perspective, it is not just a matter of the diplomat.
I think it is not only crucial for the European Union was to take the holistic approach for diplomacy. We would understand that technology is not just a diplomat or science or innovation or cyber diplomats. There are so many of them. It is also a matter of trades and trade negotiations. It is a matter of development cooperation and security and democratic. It is everything that we as diplomats do. I would say that all of the partnerships would need to feed into all of these mechanisms that are in place or maybe that need to be still introduced within all of these different policy areas and there's a role as a diplomat here. I would say bring this altogether and have the umbrella and support all of these different areas.
But, I will end from my side here and I'm happy to stay, of course. So my good colleagues and have a discussion later. Thank you so much.
>> SOFIE SCHONBORN: Thank you, Nele. That turns us over to you, Maricela.
>> MARICELA MUNOZ: Thank you so much. With only four or five minute, Nele was able to do a great job of framing the communication. I think you referred to the incredible insights that you weren't sure. We forget that science and diplomacy has been a player, you know, since centuries ago. Because we have work in collaborative platforms as humanity for centuries as well. I think the IGF is the perfect example of the sort of collaboration. It is not trivial that is a multistakeholder and we also have the voice of the underrepresented regions. I think to contribute to the line of what is missing and how can we may have strengthened that collaborative platform. I think the anticipation is that ingredient.
We are living in the era of accelerated science and technology. It is really coming at the speed that is, you know, almost difficult to navigate. The what is identifying what are the trends? You know, how can we make sure that apart from the current conversations that we have on topics that are very, very timely, we also take a minute to think of what's coming. I think that there's a cost implicit in not doing that.
For example, when we talk about the digital divide, well, quantum computing and quantum technologies, for example, will exacerbate the divide if we don't make the decisions collectively on all sectors and all of the geographies to make sure we use the opportunities to also enhance the digital cooperation and enhance the governance. Governance that should be anticipatory.
With just that, we develop a tool and digital tool that's called the science breakthrough radar and has some of the technological platforms. It is a way of providing a source of truth and produced with over 2,000 scientists from all around the world. Not only. Social science, diplomats, private sector, and citizens as well. This is the first part of how we can strengthen anticipation in that Internet governance forum arena.
The second part will be the: so what? What do we do with the knowledge? We build the literacy. How can we make sure the platform that we have platform is also in the space to build the action oriented initiatives? Just as well as with the collaboration of millions of you and really an incredible lineup of partners. We have developed some of these ideas into something which is materialised.
As a way to prove the science and diplomacy an action and not only discussions and this example is the open which was incubated and just now embedded the collaboration of the private sector, we are basically accelerating the dialogue to solutions, use cases, and applications that benefit humanity. So they tackle the DSGs. They are talking about things that can be, you know, done in the collaborative matter through the clouds. The component of digital is very much present, but also the sense of the multistakeholder approach.
Finally, then what, which is very similar in the methodology that we have developed and just how can we make sure that all of this dialogue and also the action oriented initiative converged into the strengthening of the vast community of practice that enhances precisely digital cooperation with the future outlook and with the future thinking. I think that in that mix and in the recipe, we can add the responsible innovation and the values that would and should shape what we do as well. And make sure that we reinforce the current multilateral dialogues with the cooperation that takes into consideration that's coming.
I think the science and technology need to be immersed in the governance. If we do it in a by design kind of matter, we can make sure what we have built here will continue to stand the test of time. Thank you.
>> SOFIE SCHONBORN: Thank you, Maricela. You pointed out how communities and different actors can and should engage in the developing solutions which brings us very well to Armando online can you share about the role that you see different kinds of networking taking in the initiatives and building action‑oriented solutions and practices. Armando? The floor is yours.
>> ARMANDO GUIO: It is about bringing to and quantum computing. That's one of the biggest issues. It is the international projects and localise some of the ideas and some of the infrastructure in the global network. We believe that we need to continue this kind of engagement with different centers and colleagues around the world as we believe this is going to be essential for many of the future conversations that we should happen, of course, on the projects and ideas that should come in next year.
Especially when we're talking about the impact of the technologies that are not considering borders, for example, that are moving in many different ways and beyond that. In that regard, I think that the network centers and the work that we're doing and any of the colleagues there is applying for the network. Perhaps on the point of scientific diplomacy, we have three points that I would like to highlight. The first one is the academic network can work as policy bridges and the idea of the policy bridge in which are basically we are averaged between some academic experts and policymakers and the interesting thing is that we have been able to connect experts with countries that and with policymakers in many different countries in which sometimes they don't consider to be working with or to have an impact on.
It is interesting to see, for example, how colleagues in Oslo are contributing to colleagues in Colombia and policymakers in the experience and colleagues in Singapore are helping other colleagues in Africa to perhaps think about their next steps on AI governance and examples like this is what we have the network center.
Basically, this kind of collaboration into regional collaboration that are so important right now. That's why we try to do to become the policy bridges. At same time, we have the policy bridges to bring evidence in policymaking and policy confers. I think that's also something very important to or from the science diplomacy. How important it is to become the ambassador and at the same time of evidence and good evidence and research that can inform the policy‑making process. Now we're having a lot of conversations about again and governance future and the future of work whereas the next skills. What is working and what is not? It is the bridge that we're trying to generate by connecting the audience of policy and decision working. This is recently available as it could be.
At same time, we are helping to generate capacities that we think are members and at the same time, NOC colleagues in the sense that we're trying to help and have enough knowledge about what they are doing and what the society research trends are and what kind of research is having more impact, and that also, I believe, is quite important for many of the colleagues also to have the increased relevance in the national policy. We'll say, yes, that's what we do. It is the basic terms in times of the collaboration. Difficult to build. It is of the essence especially for the diplomacy efforts. What's collaboration?
Basically, building something meaningful and creating trust and building the trust in a way that basically entities want to really collaboration with each other, participate, and grant applications and funding mechanisms to share knowledge, data, that's not as easy as it seems to be. Sometimes there's not enough trust in order to have this kind of meaningful collaboration and that's something which we basically are trying to work more and more to increase this kind of evidence and these kinds of meetings and the work that we do and the efforts and the ones we are doing to build the bridges. It is very important in the sense and collaboration and in the work we are trying to achieve.
And then finally, we have perhaps the last element is that we're trying to also look into the non‑traditional actors as stewards. Stewards of the collaboration and digital collaboration in the sense. We really believe that we cannot just fully rely. We need to be creative and big elements. That's why we believe in the network centers. We really want to increase this kind of work and with the stakeholders and build that kind of engagement in a very different and meaningful way. That perhaps is becoming the stewards also of the digital cooperation of serving and monitoring how this corporation is taking place and how it is being built and we believe it is very important. Of course, we have the examples that ‑‑ yup. As the last point we have many examples for how this is working.
Basically, what I can say is it is like this idea of following is a big example of where we are trying to achieve. Thank you.
>> SOFIE SCHONBORN: Thank you, Armando. This calls for more of the initiatives. Heading over to Isobel, maybe you can share the examples from the network of centers about your actions and experiences.
>> ISOBEL ACQUAH: Thank you so much, Sofie and the panelist. We set the tone. We ginned about two years ago. We're really one of the baby centers. If you've joined since. I think I'll look at it from three perspectives. Africa's position, the really intensive role of peer learning and the multistakeholder governance. I think when you look at Africa's perspective and I've been working through the IGF and there's so much negative and 1% of research papers are from Africa and 1% of data center and capacity, all of those things are true.
I think when you look at it from a global cooperation perspective, these channels are really an opportunity for us to collaboration. In the word that Armando used. I think that's the exciting thing. There's a lot of challenges. But the same challenges are really truly opportunities for global cooperation looking at ways that we can enhance research and how can we build academic partnerships so that you have people going from institutions in Rwanda which is where we're based and Rwanda founded the think tank and we're African focused.
How do we take young students from Rwanda who are incredibly brilliant and don't have all of the resources and bring them to the Oslo or Germany, et cetera? We do a lot of that at the corporation already. Because there's really an opportunity for us to think more broadly when we have the sort of networks. There's 140 people. Which means that you have these incredible opportunities to build knowledge and to think about things through different lenses.
I think it is important, of course, the imperative is for the African government and African ecosystem and lawyers and policymakers to figure out how we're going to deal with looking at AI governance, for example. This is truly peer and I say that, because, I think you can have a lot of organisations that sort of have the tiered system. What I find is that when we are doing the projects together, it is really around collaboration and it is really about recognising that there shouldn't be gaps in knowledge.
Recognizing that whoever is on the ground has the expertise. You've seen a lot of collaboration that we're launching today the frontiers report and digital child safely. You cannot have the report it has to have a perspective around the peer relationships. A lot of the relationships are based on historical relationships and the colonial rips or funding patterns. What tends to happen is I will sit in, you know, Rwanda, Kenya, and I'm mostly speaking to maybe the British. That's my traditional relationship partner. Or I'm speaking to X country, because that's my traditional funding partner.
What you have when you have the little NOC format is it means I can speak to people in Brazil. It makes more sense to me when I'm looking at, for example, the effect of sustain account and challenges and we're the same and not the same but similar developmental challenges and inclusivity and et cetera. How do you break out of the mold of traditional actors and make sure that you can reach out to people that are more akin to what you need and we have the solutions.
When you see the policymakers that have the competence when they are looking at AI governance, they are very, very minimal. What we decided to do and co‑hosting this with the global centers is to host a multistakeholder meeting that brought in big tech and start‑up community, policymakers, we have 20 policymakers and regulators from across the continent; and also, of course, from some of the NOC peers and Armando and providing sort of, like, not a global this is what we're doing and follow what we're doing. This is what we're doing inside the panel and, you know, what can we learn from each other. That was really well received. I think that was a comment that we really experimented with. The innovative governance structure. This was leading. You are really falling behind.
I see that multistakeholder engagement is a critical piece and we are hose the next innovative governance multistakeholder meeting. Bringing in different players and having more of the west African feel to the conversation. It is very important we have the collaborative opportunities and recognise that the non‑traditional actors are actually more nimble to make a lot of headway and collaborate much more seamlessly.
But the Civil Society and the foundation, academia, and also pulling in government and the tech, et cetera, and pull together a real document. Those are my thoughts about that.
>> SOFIE SCHONBORN: Thank you very much, Isobel. You and Armando underline how network and how the connections internationally can provide platform for trying out new things for collaborating building together and also informing policy with regional and global knowledge and capacity.
Also outside of the clash and traditional ways of doing things, of funding things maybe. That leads us to our last three speakers that who are all here in person. We have a range of experiences in government and Civil Society and institutions and the technical community. What are the perspective that the actors and communities can contribute to the conversation?
Let's start with Victor.
>> VICTOR MUNOZ: Thank you, Sofie. Hello, everyone. It is an honour for me to be here. I would like to mention the real case in Colombia. I would like to share how they experienced the case of successful science, diplomacy, and action.
Between 2018 and 2022, Colombia launched the commission as the science and technology. Also more than seven member from the different center of the center. We know that and we need everyone at the table, academics, government industry, and Civil Society to make the most specific knowledge and protect our interest. We even ask the development banks to ask the supporter of the signed diplomacy with experts around the world and government and development focused on the bridges. They have the AI plans.
At the same time, we help and support the development in the process that we have a new mode of institution. They have the framework for the fully sector projects in the safety for the community input. There's the skills road map that was in the years and also the recommendations and we have now to center for AI excellence and that we have been working together and we have researchers, companies, startups, and students. They are working together and they are learning and we are in the process to implement the new generation of the AI policy. It doesn't have the policymaker, but it creates the tools and structural policy.
We are looking ahead. We have Latin America and the first is that we are bringing it together and by the development banks and universities and plans in the ages. Trust, build the ethical rules with everyone's input for the guidelines and the ecosystem with the policymakers in the agendas. In Chile and others, the effort demonstrates that scientific diplomacy is replicated and has an opportunity to improve and to close the gap. Thank you so much.
>> LUCIEN M. CASTEX: I want to focus on the word of collaboration. I'm happy to have heard it now. It is an integral part of the collaboration. India is in peak collaboration. It is open source and people from all over the world add to have content and around the clock as well. To describe it in a way that probably resonates with a lot of people who are in the academic side. The vacuum in the back of the room, let's be clear about it is a part in the Internet. It returns on the non‑traditional and traditional actors in the space.
Around the world, the open Internet is actually under threat right now. I probably don't have to explain to all of you. This is a very timely matter for stakeholders from the academic world and the scientific community and in technical diplomacy to be asking themselves how to engage and asking themselves the question of digital cooperation and how to empower actors in the world and really with the goal of keeping us all connected. I think it is really important to ask towards what goal are we actually cooperating. Cooperation should not be the means; right? The goal itself.
But there's a larger goal, which is the benefit us all and work on the SDG and the sustainable development goals. When we ask what these stakeholders need in order to be empowered and in the conversation of digital cooperation, of course, multistakeholderism and multistakeholder approaches come to mind.
Again, they've been mentioned in the introduction here. I think everyone here is aware that it is going to require a big push by everyone involved to ensure the policy spaces remain open for such approaches. Civil Society, academic science community, and others can continue to contribute.
At the global digital compact is being implemented, multistakeholder is key. It is crucial they continue to thrive and be supported. Of course, the science community through research can represent the needs of those who may never have a voice in digital governance.
Finally, and I'll keep this short, an important part of the mix are the tools that we offer the non‑traditional stakeholders. For policy and for governance and digital cooperation. One tool that we offer is a specific thank you. We call this the Wikipedia test. Maybe you've already heard of it. Maybe it is new. You asked on the policies and regulations on Wikipedia before making decisions. The point is this. If policies and actions are bad for Wikipedia, they harmed the open Internet and many digital public goods.
In contrast, what supports Wikipedia and what's good will be beneficial for the online opportunities. This is the digital cooperation as well as we come here together in the physical space and have remote participates on the panel as well. This really shows how an open Internet is actually also the basis for digital cooperation itself. This is all closely interwoven.
Again, the cool that we use and that we want to offer everyone is when we take action and before you regulate and before the proposed policies even. Talk to us if you want to learn more about this. Thank you so much.
>> VICTOR MUNOZ: I wanted to start with the conversation and society and vision of the people‑centered and development oriented is today of the renewed importance with WSIS communities. So the Internet and technical community and the stakeholder group as a main rule basically as to cooperate and supporting the Internet.
One key point is one always speaks from somewhere and operating Internet and running on the Internet registry like gives you concrete examples actually on walking function of the Internet. Same goes for the original registry. They have the new IGF. They have the new Internet governance that has been challenging. Internet as a key underlying infrastructure which has enabled the information society and resilience and importance in supporting actually the development of society's access and ask security councils to culture and knowledge. The Internet governance is diversity.
Also, today and ITF and ICANN and ethnic as well. Clearly, the collaboration and the constitution and research and knowledge and partnership but also finding concrete and off of the Internet. Which is of the renewed importance today.
Whether the participation also means local crosses, building on cultural and linguistic diversity, and the local, and original Internet governance. It is meant to be discussed here in Oslo and everywhere else as well to enable the collaboration.
And finally, as we approach the 20‑year review of the WSIS, it is especially it is important to ensure that the review is actually inclusive and open to secondary. Obviously, academia and community. This is not the messy question in today complex and show political landscape. I want the respect to highlight on walking last year in 2024. It is held in Sao Paulo that offered with a proposed approach to digital governance and inclusive bylaw between the stakeholders.
With the element paper, it is just released a few days ago, there's a clear need of engagement to ensure that the multistakeholder model is properly leveraged in 2025 and beyond. This is the ongoing project and technology.
>> SOFIE SCHONBORN: This is all tradition and the multitraditional in the new sense. This is what we pointed out.
While we open the floor to questions, in person, please step to the matches online and feel free to submit your questions to the chat.
I would just continue some reflections about what we just heard. We have approaches by funding the policy and stakeholder engagement or fostering local and regional engagement in collaboration.
If there's no questions in the room, I would just take it back to all of our wonderful speakers. We have started talking about specific methods and tools and collaborations. But if I could ask you for one call to action or action point for either your own organisation or for other stakeholders. What would it be? Maybe we start with our online speakers. Nele Leosk, would you like to start?
>> NELE LEOSK: Hello. Thank you, Sofie. We need to co‑create. What we have realised after the 20‑plus years of the active realisation is our means and problems are quite similar in the descriptions that would be. We do not see that.
This is really creating our solutions together. We have some examples. Like being proposed from Estonia and the identity that we have developed and used also across the private and public sector. But also across the border. Some of you may know, there's the solutions. This has helped us for the financial resources. That's even more important. this is part of the ecosystem in Estonia. There could be other points, but I'll leave it to my colleagues.
>> SOFIE SCHONBORN: Thank you very much. Armando.
>> ARMANDO GUIO: Thank you. Adding to that, I would like to emphasis that one of the things that we should be working for more on is reducing information and especially about the new technologies and the technology we need to do more about this. I think the kind of network and we need to take the decision makers from all over the world and show them about technology. What is quantum tech following and where is it and how do you try to experience more of it. We are talking about the most advanced AI systems and where are those and how can we bring policymakers from different parts of the world to get closer to the distance and understand more of what they are doing. Trying to do that and working actively on doing that and bringing people together as and to bring also to the science part and technical developments, it is something that I think we just continue to work. Again, reducing the information and the essence that we want to have an inclusive and sustainable future and technology future.
Of course to build Mr. Taplins that are also sustainable in the long term. That will be my call to action. Thank you.
>> SOFIE SCHONBORN: Thank you. Turning over to our speakers in the room who have an eye on the clock. Maybe just one by one.
>> MARICELA MUNOZ: Thank you, Sofie. We live in difficult times. We came in science and policymaking and the action. This is the governance outlook and making sure that we prepare and democraticise the access to science and knowledge. It has been mentioned that we can co‑create the futures and we sire to respect the values that we want to uphold. I think that will be my call to action. Trust in science and diplomacy in governance.
>> ISOBEL ACQUAH: I think we can look at Africa's governance and I think it is important that we ride the wave and not get crushed by it. It is not going not just a consumer market; a lot of data is going to come from the continent. We look at the things from the data that we need to feed the climate AI models. I think it is important that we look at really the innovative structures and the multistakeholder and engagement and learning from each other and Armando was saying. We got to bring the policy people to protect people and make sure the they actually understand. You cannot regulate what you don't understand. I think that's a big, big gap. That can be filled when you have true multistakeholder.
>> LUCIEN M. CASTEX: I would like to emphasise the colourisation and complex situation. It is important to believe. It is important to have the genetic challenge and conversations. At this moment, for any reasons, we are having different situations. Again, we can continue to have the conversation for science. That's my call to action. Science it is not geopolitical.
>> VICTOR MUNOZ: My call to action would be thinking of Wikipedia before donating to the Internet. They collect and build knowledge. They are researchers and sciences experts in other fields. They know what's needed locally.
>> PHILLIPP S. MUELLER: It is always complicated to be last. I think having the forward‑linking view beyond 2025, what do we want? It was the Internet and the multistakeholder that needs to walk with each other. For example, they ask to collaborate. In the Internet and regulation research, they tried to force the research. We offer what we do with the dynamic coalition. We try to inform.
>> SOFIE SCHONBORN: Thank you very much. Thank you to the speakers and the audience in keeping their times and sharing such valuable and interesting perspectives. The whole session leaves with an outlook. We have lots of things to do and we can do things and can contribute to ongoing governance, discourses, and actually implementing actionable outcomes and projects. I look forward to the collaborating with all of you. Thank you so much for joining.
>> MARICELA MUNOZ: Thank you, Sofie.
