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.
***
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Hello? Is it working?
I guess I have to use --
Okay, good morning, everyone. It is interesting to be here and to have this session. One of the first sessions opening the zero of the IGF Kyoto. Thank you for your presence. I'm really looking forward to the conversation we will have today. This session, "Transforming Technology Frameworks for the Planet" is oriented to facilitate a conversation about transforming models of technology and businesses. The role of government and standards. What changes are needed to ensure that technology companies are held accountable for the violations and to promote models for human rights, justice and sustainable development.
In that sense, this session will try to respond to the questions of what changes are needed to existing policy standards and governance in order to transform technology frameworks for the planet.
In 2022, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In a report on the practical application of UN guiding principles on businesses and human rights to the technology sector stated that when a company cannot prevent or mitigate human rights violations within the framework of existing business models, those models may need to be adapted or even transformed.
So we have invited the speakers who will share the experiences in working together, through comparative and collective models. And also governments who have deployed strategies and adopted policies oriented to contribute to this field, and to allow these models to exist and to flourish.
And to tell us about the promotion of comparative models in the technology sector that can contribute to planetary justice and sustainability.
We will also try to discuss the challenges for technology cooperatives to operate in the field and a sector dominated by big technology companies.
So I have the pleasure to moderate this discussion. I am Valeria Betancourt for Association for Progressive Communications. With my colleagues and from other countries and joining us from their locations.
I also will be joined by Paz Pena who is moderating this session remotely. She is joining from Chile. From the Terraform Institute.
I would like to welcome our speakers and thank them for being here and for sharing your perspectives and your work. So we have Kemly Camacho from Costa Rica, we have Sula Batsu from Germany.
Vicki, independent researcher. We have Florencia Roveri joining from Argentina from Civil Society, also joining us remotely from Mexico, from May First. So welcome, all of you, and thank you so much for being here. We have Shawna Finnegan joining from Canada from APC and she is in the Rapporteur role.
We will welcome your interventions from the floor. So we expect to have this conversation with you as well.
So let me start with Kemly. With learning from the experience of comparative in Costa Rica. So Kemly, why is it important that we are having this conversation about transforming technology frameworks at the IGF and what can we learn from the experiences of the comparative. So you have the floor.
>> KEMLY CAMACHO: Thank you very much, thank you for being here on line and in the room.
We are Sula Batsu, south management comparative, 20 years working in alternatives for digital economy. And we are looking for promote non-extravist digital economy. Exploring ourselves for these 20 years. But also incubating two initiatives about entrepreneurship, non-(?) entrepreneurship. If we have to describe the current development model that we are using, and especially the digital economy, I think the world has to be extractavist, because our resources, we chase enough. But also model of solidarity. Of time for organization. Time for reflection. Time for citizens participation. We describe that strategy as the base of the model of the digital economy.
And then we think we have to create alternatives. We have to create resistance to these models.
The model of these digital economies is a business model who promote constant innovation. Basic and extreme consumption, especially digital commodities.
We ask APC to convene this workshop to really reflect the proposed shared challenges and success building other business model for non-strategist business economy.
Based in combination of social economy and feminist models and feminist economy proposals.
Not only for our own business, but also, as I said before, to create incubators for enen entrepreneurship, for women in business, especially IT for other business models.
We have learned to integrate solidarity, friendship, business models. We have create business models where these words and these beliefs are part of the business model. Part of accounting, part of the project management, part of the team collective, yes.
And we have learned how to develop nonprofit business as a strategy to respond to social economic and cultural problems.
For the social economy model inside the digital economy, the business part is for the social, economic and cultural needs. It's not the main issue, the business part. Yes, that comes from the social economy perspective. Yes, nonprofit business models where the business is the answer to these social problems.
Inside the IT society who have specific problems related with the digital.
We also have learned how to put care in the centre of our business model. That comes from the feminist economy. Care in the centre of business models. And then solidarity in the centre of the model. Care. Nonprofit, for non-distractive digital society.
There are important challenges. We have launched our platform co-incubators last year, in alliance with the national centre for training and co-ops and in alliance with the University of Mon grenon (?)
We have seen digital feminist initiatives based in a model we created that began with a feminist hack-a-thon, very different than a normal hack-a-thon. A hack-a-thon, not for competition but for sharing, yes. And everything. I'm not going in details. But we have created this incubator of digital feminist initiatives. But of course, we confront in our context difficulties in innovation ecosystem to try to support platform co ops or feminist entrepreneurship for IT and for the digital society, because they not fit in what they understand is an innovation, or in what they understand is a business model for the digital economy. Then the access to finance, to support, to technical support is very hard and difficult.
We have to create them ourselves also. Then this is the main challenge.
We really believe there's a need to create alternatives and demonstrate there are other ways to illustrate the digital economy. We feel it's important. The planet is burning and the answer is not in the business model that we have created until now.
We have to create other business model and demonstrate it's possible to develop a digital economy not based in stractivist (?) always I put the organic agriculture as an example of how we can develop these other models. And also, of course, the social economy. They inspire our experience and we hope we inspire you to propose alternatives. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Thank you, Kemly, in particular for reminding us that it is possible to have a digital economy that contributess to planetary justice, environmental justice. Not dissociated from care and solidarity. So I think that's very important and that change of paradigm.
With that, I would like to invite one of our remote speakers, Florencia Roveri who is joining us from Argentina. For lorencia, can you confirm you can hear us?
>> FLORENCIA ROVERI: Yes.
>>
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: We can hear you perfectly. Welcome to the panel. I would like you, please, Florencia, what motivated TAO and what's been the impact so far. Also we are curious to hear about the obstacles you have faced in that transitioning process. You have the floor, and welcome again, Florencia.
>> FLORENCIA ROVERI: Thank you, Valeria. Thank you for the opportunity to share this experience, can you hear me?
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead, please.
>> FLORENCIA ROVERI: For sharing our experience in this event, it is very valuable for us to participate and add our view. We are a social organization in Argentina. As Valeria mentioned, we turned from that work for digital inclusion of organizations. Created by group of activists. We move from this objective working access to technology to dealing with access to technology.
In that sense we develop a plant for the treatment of e-waste.
We begun -- sorry, I am going to start again, sorry.
Nodo Tau was created in 1995. We developed our work in that sense.
The plans we create, it has to do with excess of machines we receive from companies. Machines that work for the organization and network of telecentres.
The plant was created in 2019 and it was in the frame of a local programme of work inclusion.
It was formed by six young men and one woman.
Accompanied by three members of Nodo TAU. The plant receives mainly from U.S. companies and public bodies -- sorry, sorry. I am dealing with nervous, I have to reorganize. Sorry.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: It's okay Florencia, if you prefer, we can come back to you in a bit. If that is something you would like us to do. We can invite Jaime and then go back to you?
>> FLORENCIA ROVERI: It's okay, it's okay.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Would you like to continue now? It's also okay, just let me know what your preference would be.
>> FLORENCIA ROVERI: Uh-huh. We create the plans. In that frame I was mentioning after four years after the creation of the plant we start leading with some aspects related to the use of Nodo TAU in inclusion but also sustainability of the plans. So we need to face that challenge of articulating the dynamic of the organization and of the plans management.
Our focus was a more general work and cooperative was growing and [dog barking]
Sorry, go on with Jaime. Sorry for that. Sorry for that.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Thank you so much, Florencia, for sharing your experience. You can add anything when we are in the part of the conversation, feel free to jump in and add anything you might want to share with the audience.
Now let's turn to Mexico, and to invite reflections from Jaime Villareal from the May First Movement Technology. Why it's important to be a nonprofit. Do share with us, you have the mic.
>> JAIME VILLAREAL: Thank you. When they join us, they are supporting movements for racial and environmental justice. Our specific focus is the role of technology, in both local and international movement struggles.
In addition to the movement outreach and engagement that we do, one of May First's central projects is maintaining our own autonomous communications infrastructure.
What that means is we run our own internet servers. We provide email and web hosting and file sharing and other communication services like video conferencing for our members.
As part of our cooperative, our members of the cooperative collectively own and we democratically govern together this infrastructure. What that gives our members the power to do, year after year they consistently vote to keep our own infrastructure and keep that infrastructure free of any kind of surveillance or exploitation.
This is really important. A lot of times people ask us, so are you creating an alternative to the corporate internet services? I like to say, no, we are not an alternative to Google or Meta or Amazon or those. Because we are focusing on the needs of our members. We are providing the tools that facilitate communication that allow them to organize and take action to create a better world on their own terms.
Contrary to popular belief, this is not something that corporate internet monopolies are in the business of doing, they aren't facilitating communication. Their core business is data collection and data mining. Any communication services they provide are just hooks, are carefully engineered to coerce consumers into giving up their privacis. These business models are fundamentally extractive and exploitive.
Because these companies collect and store pedabytes of personal data from consumers the necessary competing resources and the environmental impact of running their operations is astronomically larger than our own.
So in terms of environmental sustainability, we are already at an advantage simply because we do the right thing and we don't engage in this type of surveillance and data collection.
But aside of that obvious benefit of being free of surveillance, our members are still interested to find new ways to increase our environmental sustainability and reduce our carbon footprint.
Unfortunately, for an organization our size, our options are limited. Where we can place our service is limited by both human resources and by access to high-speed broadband. And we, as a small organization, simply don't have the capital to create our own data centres that would be closer, have direct access to renewable energy resources. And processing our own e-waste is also a challenge. That is something we are interested in learning from other APC members like Nodo TAU.
This is one of the advantages I think allowing our members to guide our project and being a cooperative model that gives our members a voice and vote and control and ownership over their own communications.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: That's a really powerful experience to share, thank you very much, Jaime. It illustrates the interplay between environmental sustainability and the reinforcement of the exercise of rights, so that's quite interesting and inspiring.
So governments, obviously governments could be key champions for environmental justice. In that sense we are very happy to have on the panel. What does it mean from context of digitalisation, and welcome. And also, if you can perhaps, let me just add something. If you could also touch upon how can global norms and standards relating to governmental approach support these and in that sense work together towards just transitions. Let us hear your views.
>> Valeria, thank you so much for this interesting question. It's a great honour and pleasure to share my views on behalf of (?) day zero and take it back to Berlin to also check how our work is aligned with what cooperators do.
Let me start with the first question and then echo.
We want to enhance economic political through partner countries especially the most marginalized. Our mission and cooperation with our partners is essential for the holistic approach necessary to address the root causes of the complex problems that we are facing today.
These global challenges did not because easier if we consider climate change just mentioned, pandemics, poverty and the fight against hunger. They all require coordinated responses that go beyond individual projects. And now let me get to what cooperation means especially in the field of the digital affairs, digitalisation.
If we look how the world looks today, it's happening very unequally. Almost half of the world's population do not have access to the internet. We here in Japan, it's very different, if you consider partners in the global south.
Women and marginalized communities are particularly affected by this digital divide. Whereas more than 90% of people are online in the European Union, or Germany, where I am from. In our partner countries fewer than 40% who have internet access and we are working to change this.
So cooperation is key for us in addressing these issues. And I think we need conversations between countries from the global south and the north to make digitalisation benefit all.
Staying true to the claim to leave no one behind, we first need to make sure that everyone can benefit from digital transformation. What does it mean? This means prioritizing inclusivity and promoting meaningful equal access for all people, especially in this vulnerable and marginalized communities are essential. Yes, global norms are essential in doing this.
We have three cornerstones in our digital policy work to get there. Norms are one of them. We could talk about this on the panel, I would say. But for us, they are essential. Especially digital public goods and this is very important for us in our work and yesterday, you had, I think one conversation on the digital compact. We are very engaged in that process and the dialogue contributing and I think we have an interesting road ahead to the summit of the future in getting there. And shaping this together and learning from you, it's helpful for us to contribute in that process and engaging in these norms.
We aim to promote a fair free secure internet. This is also part of the norms you mentioned. To get a digital transformation which is ecological, social and feminist. And in this way, the digital transformation can be a driver of progress towards achieving the SDGs, we are now in our halftime if we consider the agenda 2030. I hope this answers your question now and looking forward to the dialogue and thank you for inviting again.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Thank you. We heard from Kemly, we want to contribute to planetary justice, the consideration of feminist and gender is crucial. We can't get there without considering that aspect. Last but not least and before inviting Paz to pose some questions. I would like to invite Becky, a researcher in the field. How do you see this conversation of transforming technology frameworks and advancing planetary justice in the governance of technology in relation to recent policy developments, such as labelling.
So I'm very curious to hear about it.
>> Becky: Thank you so much for having me. (Off microphone)
Thank you very much. I think it's on now.
For the last year or so, I've been collaborating with a number of different organizations and networks and APC included to think about the values and principles that can guide more collaborations across different civil society movements.
To think about technological governance that can support environmental and climate justice.
And as part of that work, we have been brainstorming on what a theory of change can look like on this really, in collaboration with a number of different partners and collaborators.
So I wanted to share a little bit about some of the biggest themes that have come up from this process. Because I think it really brings home how important the kinds of models are that the other speakers have really beautifully illustrated already.
I would say one of the most important themes that's come up is on the one side it's essential to support alternative models for technology through collaboratives, co ops and other models.
On the other hand it's essential we, I mean we as a group of different kind of stakeholders coming together today, that we don't get distracted by technologies and tools that on the surface can seem quite promising for mitigating or adapting to climate change. But which have already proven to be quite harmful to different kinds of communities and populations in countries around the world.
And so, in not getting distracted, this would provide more room for support for the kinds of models that are being discussed today. And I will give you a few examples of the kinds of distractions that have come up in the policy space recently. And around which there is movement on the policy side to either reform or think strongly about restrictive governance and even going further than that.
The first is around A.I. which is a subject that comes up a lot these days.
And I'm thinking specifically of the fact that in the climate governance space, the UN FCC has announced a new initiative to support exploration of the promise of A.I. as a climate technology.
On this front, what Civil Society really is arguing for is that if there is going to be a wide scale investment -- and there already is, into data-driven technologies like A.I., then we have to make sure their promises on the one hand aren't over sold by certain actors. And on the other hand, that the harms that already are apparent are actually taken account of in further movements around A.I.
And I will give you one example in particular. Because A.I. is now being framed as an important tool in the food and water security and access.
Recently there have been studies coming out -- and it has been historically very difficult to measure exactly what the impact of A.I. has been on climate, water and resources. But there have been studies showing that, for example, half a litre of water is spent for every five queries that someone makes to ChatGPT. So to put it into context, that's a large amount of water for someone sitting in front of their computer and asking five questions to something that is powered by a very, very water and resource intensive infrastructure.
So, that is just one example from the climate side but there are so many human rights centered harms for decades now by civil society. This really brings into question then, and I think offers a lot for consideration and food for thought as A.I. gets invested into as a climate technology.
A very quick second example is around solar geo engineering. This is a long-promised but still speculative technology, which in the last year governments have actually announced an interest in investing and experimenting with, on a scale that hasn't necessarily taken place before. This is a technology for which there is no system of governance. And in fact 400 scientists from around the world question whether it is even possible to govern something like solar geo engineering because it requires enormous wide scale coordination across the world.
Once its put into place, it creates a lock-in. Because if it were to stop, it could make climate change and global heating much worse and much faster.
So on this basis, a number of different groups are pushing for moratoriums, bans, and basically trying to evoke the precautionary principle to make it, to create the space to step back and ask whether this is something that actually we citizens and people living across different regions of the world should consent to. Because once its put in place, the impacts can be enormous.
And one final example from the positive side of recent policy developments, is around the E.U. green claims collective, innovative piece of policy, which would help the consumer understand which products they are interested in purchasing are actually living up to the many claims around sustainability that different companies make in terms of net zero and otherwise. This is great progress.
However, it's clear that there is a lot to figure out in how this works in practice. And I will give you one example, which is around carbon offsets.
So carbon offsets are not directly addressed, as I understand it, by the green claims directive.
However, it does take the perspective that a company should not be able to claim it's climate neutral or sustainable simply because it makes use of carbon offsets. This is an important acknowledgment and I think it responds to a number of different scientific studies, consensus around that that is building and also push back from Civil Society for several decades now. Saying that carbon offsets do not actually work ecologically the way they are set out to. And they provide cover for companies to make claims that they can't necessarily deliver on. But what's really important to ask there is how far can this green claims directive go? Because a lot of Civil Society is pushing for a more fundamental critique of carbon offsets. They would say it's not enough to simply Saywell, you can only use a certain amount of carbon offsets. They would say actually the entire carbon market system needs either reform, or even something more drastic than that.
Because at the moment, over 90% of carbon offsets, even the verified ones, even the ones that conform to all of the standards that have been set, are not working.
And so, I'm going to leave it there, and simply say that there are a lot of questions here, obviously. There are positive governance and policy developments in this regard. And the hope is that by pushing these further and not getting distracted by risky speculative technologies, that more support is available for the kinds of initiatives that we have heard from today. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Thank you so much. Thank you, that is also very powerful and particularly how you remind us about the need to apply the precautionary principle. I think that's a must. Hopefully it's been taken seriously by all the necessary stakeholders.
With that, I want to invite my co-moderator, Paz Pena to see if you have questions for the speakers. And if we have, also interventions from remote participants. So Paz, over to you.
>> MODERATOR PENA: Thank you, Valeria. Just to remind our online participants that they can actually share their comments and questions on the chat, or in the Q&A tool.
I just want to make a couple of general questions, open questions to our participants.
I think based on what you have said, the big question here is what is digital transformation in the context of climate and theological crisis, no?
Becky said, in a way you have two answers. One is the green, you know, responses that green tech is giving. Which by the way, are super problematic because of the extractionivist nature. All the infrastructure you need for that extractivism but because of water, natural resources in general, et cetera.
So that is one thing that is super important to address. But in a way, I believe that governments, especially, are forgetting to look at other business models besides the big tech model in their own local companies of technologies, no?
It seems that, and this is something that I have been learning in all countries, for example, Latin America, governments try to give funds to companies to regulate the business model of big tech, no? In a way that more data, more growth, et cetera.
That is why, I think it's important to ask ourselves what is digital transformation, then, in the context of this climate crisis.
We want more data? We want more growth of that sector? That means for example, that we need to deal with e-waste. This is what the incredible initiative that Nodo TAU is doing in Argentina. But who is paying for that? Is big tech paying organizations to cope with e-waste? Who is paying for that?
What is doing, what are governments doing with all that kind of, you know, e-waste that we need to deal with when we are saying digital transformation is more big tech, et cetera, et cetera, no?
So I think my next question, besides what is digital transformation in this context, is then, what is the role of governments? Not only to deal with the problem of sustainability of big techs, but also in terms of basically alternative business models, no?
Because here in Latin America, we have a very historical tradition of different technology business models that sometimes they fail because they don't see support from local governments. So what is the role of local governments in the context of climate crisis and ecological crisis? I think those questions are key in order to actually radically transform the planetary ways, the ways we see the planetary crisis from technology. Thank you very much.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Yes, thank you, Paz. Also, in addition to what role governments have in these alternative models I would like to also add how that support should look like concretely in practice.
So both our remote participants and our speakers, remote speakers and speakers on site are invited to respond and to react to these questions that Paz has also brought up, so if any of you would like to respond? Kemly? More participants? Okay.
>> KEMLY CAMACHO: Okay, it resonates with me a lot what our colleague said here about not putting processing the grain but in the models we are using. And that connects a lot with what Paz said before. Because at least Latin America, imaginary of our governments but also our citizens and also academia, the big model is startups, unicorn, big techs. Yes, these business model, this way to do economy is the ideal way. Is the road, the path we have to go. It's crucial to really rethink these models, yes. It's really changed tools. Changed approaches, changed technologies to develop business models and digital economy. The same thing. Yes, we have to change that. Seems after or during the pandemic we in Latin America talk, or the solution was the digital transformation. We always said this is not the solution. The solution is digital appropriation which is totally different for ourselves. Digital transformation for consumption. Digital orientation to reduce consumption. To think which digital tools you really need. Which digital business you really need to develop. For us, there's a main difference between digital transformation and digital appropriation and we go and advocate for digital transformation.
When I talk about changing the business models, really to develop tools and I'm calling academia, I'm calling innovators, I'm calling governments to really rethink the way that we are doing business. And I'm going to put concrete examples have worked with the campus model to develop a business, yes?
In this campus model to develop a business, the centre is the value-added of your business, yes?
What we have done is put in the centre the solidarity and care that your business is going to improve and develop, yes? Before the value-added to get money, yes?
And also we put instead of putting in the centre of these model the accumulation, we put the reabsorption of resources you put in these business models. We have to change that, yes. Because for us, this is in the centre of the development of our society. And we cannot talk green if we are using unicorn startups and big companies and platform companies, not platform co-op but platform companies as the model of the digital economy and as the model of our entrepreneurship in our countries.
Answering a little bit the question, this is my reaction. Also remember extractivism is everywhere. We talk about extracting water, it's crucial, fundamental but also extracting wisdom, knowledge of the people. Extractivist of the time, it's at the centre of these models. And then this is my reaction, Valeria.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Let me invite Florencia into the space also to talk about participation, honouring the hybrid format of the IGF. And then we can take reactions from the floor here.
So Florencia, the floor is yours.
>> FLORENCIA ROVERI: Thank you, Valeria.
Just to follow what you are saying, when we decide to retain the plant to a cooperative, it has to do with follow with intention of providing work inclusion for a group of young people. Adding that sense to our previous work of digital inclusion. And also assuming the challenge that we were facing with the excess of e-waste in our every day work.
So we first developed the plans and then following the process of the plant we decided to go on with the project of the cooperative due to the aspects, the different focus, the complexity of the work of the plans, the plan has to lead with aspects to commercialization and it has complexity that it aims to be production unit on itself.
Also an experience of accompanying another cooperative that is working in the treatment of cartridge tonnes. And they followed this process of becoming a cooperative. In this case by women, work gender organisation working with issues of violence and situations which they are involved. Also the primary aspect is their work inclusion. So in these two experiences, we work with the treatment of technology, assuming the responsibility of dealing with that aspect of the technology but also with the human aspect related to the work and social inclusion of these groups.
In the case of the plant, we also include another aspect that is the social destiny of the equipment that we could recover and repair in the work of the plant. So these experiences invite us to rethink the use of technology and our work with it. Assuming they are still resources needed for the communities but the environmental impact in place is needed to be assumed by diversity of actors.
And one of the aspects we found in the work of the cooperatives in particular, the e-waste, cooperative management of TAU, is these responsibilities are not being perceived and are not being assumed. And in this sense, we distinguish aspects related to government responsibilities in the terms of developing plans for eradication of e-waste and actors and the regulation and promotion of loss in Argentina. We do not have a national law. We have a provincial regulation with some aspects that are interesting, in terms of, for example, recognising the figure of the management of e-waste and recognising the social re-use of equipments that is interesting in several aspects that promotes the re-use of computers, for example.
And also the responsibility of companies in the private sector in which we can distinguish their responsibility of producers, facilitating this process which we deal with the work in the plants of the management plant. And the also the responsiblability of companies that generate e-waste. In terms of what Paz was mentioning previously, in this sense, it is important to visualize the cost involved in the treatment.
We lead locally with a lot of actors that want to value the work of the cooperative of Nodo TAU. But they assume the devices they discard are donations. In this sense it's important to highlight an extended perception of this concept of devices I do not use any more, or the e-waste the companies generate are donated for social use. There is a slogan in a local campaign which is don't donate your waste to me, because in this sense we are naming donation the process getting rid of a problem and giving the problem to another actor. So the idea is relevant, dealing with any stuff that don't donate waste. But in the case of technology, discarded technology, there is some difficulties that make it even dangerous, so. That is what we want to mention.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Thank you so much, Florencia. Would you like to take some of the questions that Paz brought up? Please go ahead.
>> Yes, thank you so much. Let me first start with an invitation for another session of German delegation. On day 2 we have an event, planetary limits of A.I.
Governance for just A.I., this is our topic. Welcome and we will give a short overview what we contribute in this field and how our approach is toward digital transformation in particular.
That together with the European Union, we offer a human-centered digital re transformation. We address its risks for environment, but also individual human rights and society. We use the term trim transition, our digital transformation can help fight against environmental challenges.
We want to actively combat social division, misuse of data as well as environmental and climate damage caused by resource consumption and CO2. I like your approach what is changing, business model campus, I was talking MBA classes and this is exactly what you mentioned. I think education is essential for this, but we will come back to it later again.
So as Germany, we are committed toward ecological feminist and social digital technology. Fair balance of interest, based on European standards and universal human rights.
We want to ensure partner countries are integrated in an open secure and inclusive internet and fair data markets. And for that we need strong local governments and I will also come back to that later.
Our digital policies based on three cornerstones. And you mentioned earlier, the role of standards and norms. These are essential. But also structures. By that, I mean, DPI, digital public infrastructure goods but third promoting digital skills in society and economy.
I also really like the sentence about don't donate your waste to me because I think it's also a question of education for that.
But firstly, providing structures for human-centered digital services and public goods is vital. Many of our initiatives to give a more concrete example, because otherwise sometimes international digital policy is very abstract.
Our initiatives contribute to more democratic and open fair societies. Our goal is to support the digital safe determination of citizen partner countries. Effective secure infrastructure based on open and visible building blocks.
We have one initiative, our flagship initiative of the German international digital policy, called GASTEC, a global toolbox for reusable open source building blocks for gaff tech. Secondly to be more concrete on the questions mentioned we work with partner countries across the globe to promote fair regulation of the digital economy.
And one initiative I want to highlight is so-called being digital transformation centres, serve as local implementation anchor of these efforts.
Around the globe we already have 22.
Further we have worked with governments, Rwanda, Africa, Uganda. They have a focus on the fight against environmental challenges.
I think we support also our global partners to realise the potential of A.I. through local innovation. And here is where the magic happens.
Last but not least, digital skills are one of the cornerstones, training of young people in job related digital skills but also related to waste management and getting a mindset and a culture in this regard is essential.
Therefore we support the public sector in our daily work, the private sector, Civil Society and especially young women in acquiring the necessary knowledge about digitalisation and being able to respond to the challenges of digital transformation. And to use its potential. And our learning platform is called Atingy. German development corporation. Our partner -- it already reached over 11 million people. I just want to stress that next to norms we focus on standards and skills. And with these three cornerstones we try to contribute towards working on digital transformation which really contributes in the fight against environmental damages and challenges and this is all concrete work next to coordination efforts and global arena and forum. Thank you so much.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Thank you so much. I think that commitment is very important in order to detect the impact. Know the policy developments and norms will have, when in place, as Becky was pointing out. It might be difficult then to revert the effects of what policies and norms enable, or their result they produce. So thank you for that.
Jaime, let me know if you want to intervene at this point. To refer to the questions that Paz put up. Otherwise, I can open the floor for questions and comments here. And also from remote participants. Jaime first, let me hear from you, if you would like to intervene.
>> JAIME VILLAREAL: Sure, gracias Valeria. I don't know if I have anything new to add. I agree with a lot of what has been said so far. I really want to highlight some of the points other guests have made. I really agree with Kemly we have to push back on this dominant model of thinking about how solutions are made. This dominant capitalist narrative that only excessively profitable high-yield businesses can guide us through climate change.
This kind of ridiculous thinking is what is driving the investment and promotion of things like artificial intelligence. We have to remember artificial intelligence doesn't exist on its own. It's fueled on our data, our information. It's this rampant accumulation and extraction of our knowledge that makes this possible. And that is built on -- that has a very huge physical environmental impact. And it has a real emotional impact, psychological impact on us as a society to operate that way.
This kind of thinking, this nonsense is essentially trying to put out a fire with gasoline. We can't allow this to continue.
I really appreciate the comments about pushing back against the green washing of these businesses. These companies who make enormous profits based on extractive business models of surveiling their users and spend a fraction of that money to create a few exemplary sustainable data centres. These public relations stunts don't address all the environmental impacts that are needed to continue their operations.
But also, they are essentially -- even if they do comply with their promises for reducing their carbon footprints, they are essentially doing damage control to a problem that they themselves have created. We can't allow this kind of thing to continue.
I really agree with supporting a different thinking, different model. Supporting community and cooperative-based models towards supporting communications and listening to ourselves and taking guidance from our communities in these matters.
And in that sense, we have been doing, a lot of us have been doing this a long time. If we are to be supported, I think it needs to be on our own terms. We have to be trusted to continue practicing community engagement in the way we have been doing, and organizing our selfs in the way we have been doing.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Precisely. That's part, perhaps one of the most important responses to enable that community engagement and response is possible. And feasible.
So let me open for reactions, comments, questions from the floor. And also from remote participants. If there is anyone here that would like to intervene to pose a question or a reaction, your interventions are welcome.
So let me know. You can raise your hand, we can pass you the mic. Please, go ahead.
>> Participant: Thank you very much, Valeria. Is the microphone working? Yes, okay? Very good.
I very much appreciate this session, my name is Peter Bruck, the Chairman of the world summit awards. What we do is we focus on best practice examples. Exactly regarding new and different business models. In this room, next session, is on Hacking Digital Divides. You will see alloy for instance, micro financing solution for small and micro businesses. You will see social app from Chile, which shows, you will love this very much, business model based on love. They have 600 different kind of companies there.
Then we have people from Lebanon which show how social volunteers work. And it's something very interesting. The digital transformation centres work with us regarding promoting these examples. We were just in Mexico in Puebla doing this.
The next thing for this session which is so important is to talk about the technology frameworks, and the alternative of technology frameworks. And I think what Jaime was saying is really very much to the point. But he is giving -- Jaime, you were giving us a critique, but not showing us possible solutions.
One thing I think very much important when you are looking at large language models and machine learning and how you train them, that very few people -- I have not seen any government talk about how to tax the A.I. companies for how they train their models with the data. So they are not paying for the data which they use to train. They are not respecting copyright in terms of when they train it. They are not giving anything back.
So one of the things I found very interesting, when you talk about social, ecological and feminist, do they have a clear understanding that you need to go into economics of how to make A.I. smarter and, what would it be actually, in terms of a cooperative model for that aspect. Because then, interesting Valeria, the issue of this session. Which is alternative technology frameworks.
We need to see, and I think Jaime was very clear on that, we have very much a hidden extraction situation. Exploitation situation. But it's not being recognised as such. And therefore, we are not even using market models which means making them pay for the smartness of their models. And we are not moving to this, although we have, the German government, one of the key players in that industry global play, you know.
My question is very much on this issue, have you thought about it yourself. Is there anything in terms of policy development? Then Valeria, I would be happy to engage more with APC finding good examples where you aren't creating a parallel economy but basically seeing, how can we transform the economy and do that in a different way.
So that would be my little five cents.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Thank you so much for your contribution. Is there any other contribution from the floor? Or, Paz, let me know if there are remote participants who would like to intervene?
Or present questions for the panel?
>> MODERATOR PENA: Not here.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Obviously the panel is invited to react, to comment, to respond to what has been said. Anyone of you would like to take on, please?
>> JENS: Peter, thank you so much. Very interesting question. First let me say one question to engagement in this regard and then get back to your answer.
Digital initiatives provide knowledge of regulations providing standards, in order to promote goals for fair digital transition in partner companies and one initiative I didn't mention but is really fitting in this context, pay forward, which contributes toward the develop mgt of open A.I. training datasets in Swahili, Uganda.
We have worked with governments that I mentioned, how they contribute for green tech solutions. We see open access to training data and research, as well as open source A.I. models as a foundation for local innovation.
Tuesday in our session, partners from (?) foundation are also here. The economics of our engagement is super interesting. The aspects that you mentioned and I am a fan of that approach, actually, as a studied economist. But I think for now, we have a different approach and I will get that question, take that back to Berlin and discuss with our colleagues which are operationalizing doing that programme. And programmes are also developing and changing, I would say, generally.
But at the end for me it's important what the outcome and impact of what these programmes are and how they can contribute towards local solutions and transforming the local population and the economics of the local development is essential.
But I also think it's a global question, which we will discuss. And taking it from there. I would like to engage with you beyond this panel and discussion. Let's discuss also after the IGF, please. Maybe other colleagues on the panel.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Thank you. The cooperatives that are present here, obviously they have been also thinking and implementing different types of solutions and providing responses.
Let me just check if there are other questions or comments here? Yes, please, go ahead.
>> Hello, Nova corporation, private company in Japan. Very interesting discussion. I'm working on here so IT industry in Japan. And then in Japan, there is a word, digital dogota, means the construction worker. Digital worker. But working like the construction working. So means very small work. So accumulate, accumulation of the small workers, small work, will be big, so make big building. This is the Japanese industry culture.
But if A.I. coming here, and then maybe this mindset will be changed. But I think it will be moderate because it's a very big change.
And then, so this kind of layer structure, small worker will be used by the readers, and this kind of structure is existing in the industry. So maybe if we think about this digital transformation, we need to take care each (?) so how to do transformation, how to transform each layer.
So maybe A.I. will be a way to disrupt the layers. And then maybe new style or new business model will come.
So in fact, I heard several, I offered several works of the new era, on new business model. That means the new work is training A.I.
So training A.I. means make data of the conversation. It's very easy and maybe anyone can speak Japanese can train A.I.
So this is just a new start work. But there is also the big gap of the current work and previous work. So maybe this kind of gap of the new business model, and the current model will be the programme in the industry.
I've heard that in this discussion.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Thank you very much. I would like to finally invite the panel and our remote speakers as well to just share some final remarks. With some recommendations or demands that you might have to different stakeholders, including governments, of course. If you want to dig a little bit more into the point that was brought up about solutions and responses, you are welcome to do so.
So I would like to start with Becky, if you would like to share some final comments.
>> BECKY: Yes, thank you. I will keep my final comment very short. Which is to say that one important thing that is required in order to support the kinds of solutions that already exist, and pathways that already exist within a just transition, and that includes examples brought forward today by panelists both remotely and in the room. So to support those, we also have to challenge what the climate justice movement for decades has called out as false and misleading climate solutions. So that includes pushing for policy that can address green washing. And also pushing for strong regulation around speculative and dangerous climate technologies.
Some of these technologies are not always part of the digitalisation discussion. For example, solar geo engineering carbon credits but they are being invested in heavily by big tech companies as part of plans to be able to continue the profit models that they rely on. So that's why it's important for the audience of the IGF to also begin to engage around these kind of technologies as well and see them as part of the same discussion. So thank you so much.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Thank you so much. So let me go to Florencia. Would you like to share your final comments, demands or recommendations?
>> FLORENCIA ROVERI: Yes, thank you. Just to highlight again, the aspect about responsibilities related to each holder. In our focus, e-waste is a very complex problem. It's a challenge and also maybe it would need to be involved, the idea it should be a public service to assume this problem and also the fact of the profitability of this actions. We work in a very small experience but it's a huge problem affecting really environment and also it's a problem that has a very big potential in work generation possibilities and opportunities for people. And also for addressing the digital divide also. So, thank you.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Thank you, Florencia. Let me go to Gilnes for your final comment, please.
>> Thank you so much. This was super interesting and an honour to be here. Constitutes various political responses, process, our key question how can we reinforce efforts to bring local perspectives and national perspectives from the global south in the international arena. And we have a wide growing international network in working relations with a number of governments but also civil society actors and other stakeholders which we use in favour of more digital cooperation. On an international level, the German government, especially supports the global digital compact which was mentioned before. And we also actively engage in discussions in the G7, G 20 context, the digital for development of the European Union. Global digital cooperation is essential for us to support a holistic approach to the digital transformation. Not only for its opportunities but also its risks. I personally think we must foster close cooperation on a large scale in order to advance social and sustainable transition around the globe. This is why we are here. Let's stay in touch. This was super helpful. Thank you very much for your perspectives. I think sharing this format, we are stronger and can build a digital world where we can achieve our goals together.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Thank you, Gilnes (?). Jaime, you have the floor, please.
>> JAIME VILLAREAL: Thank you. I agree with the gentleman who called out these large companies for what essentially is criminal behaviour of using our data to train these language models, at no cost of their own.
While I agree that we need to hold these companies and corporations accountable, the idea of allowing them to pay a fine, pay a tax, I have strong questions about this. How is this different from the system of carbon credits and different from a shell game that allows them to do wrong and pay for it later with the enormous profits they are able to make from that.
And likewise, this idea, how these questions, I think they are very interesting questions how this changes the role of the worker and what participation we can have as workers training A.I. models. It's important that there is choosing to be a worker and then there are ways we will be forced to be workers and be forced to train A.I. and be forced just to have access to technology through tiny widgets presented to us, through puzzles we have to solve, any information we have to give to A.I., we will have no choice in training these models. What do we do about that where we are exploited and not even treated as real workers and basically serfs within this wider system?
I think of course supporting local initiatives and Indigenous language in their native, is important. It's important to ask ourselves, are we asking, are we listening to these communities directly? Is this what they want? And maybe there are cases where they are interested in experimenting and having access to these technologies. But I don't think we can apply this as a single solution across-the-board to everywhere, that this is the way to stimulate local preservation of languages in Indigenous cultures. I think we have to ask, everywhere there has to be a proper consultation with local communities if this is something they are actually interested in.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Absolutely. And the global community has a role to play to ensure those perspectives and the ones impacted in reality are brought to these conversations. As Jaime pointed out there's not a single solution that fits everyone. Hearing from the ones that are impacted and realities and peculiarities is important. The commitment of all the stakeholders to make sure those voices are heard. Because there's a voice, the problem is they are not welcome or heard in different spaces. That's very necessary and one of the needed actions in order to change the paradigm.
So let me close the panel with Kemly. Your final remarks and then thank you all for the presence and comments and for joining the conversation about this key issue.
>> KEMLY CAMACHO: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Bruck for your intervention, that made me think a lot, yes.
But I have the same reaction than Jaime, yes, if you pay you can do it, yes. Then I would like to also integrate and discuss with my colleagues with a feminist analysis what you are proposing, yes.
Especially because of that. Because if we charge the machine learning, the training machine learning is not the way to accept that they can do that if they charge?
And also, because in the feminist analysis, technology frameworks has to be very related to solve the concrete problem in the context where we women live. Then technology framework for us, yes, have to be related with these context around us. The care of our children, the care of our community and then our technology frameworks. We prioritize these technology frameworks. This is one thing, that's the good thing about the job and the fair job and the precariousness of work and how that is transforming. And how all what we win as workers are transforming. This is another discussion. And I think this business model, collective comparatives and all of that have in the centre a fair job. And especially a fair job for women. It's totally connected. If we have fair jobs we can survive as humanity in this world. If we have precarious jobs or work, we are not going to survive as humanity for sure.
Then just to say, thank you very much. I think this is a conversation to follow and go in depth and discover and explore. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR BETANCOURT: Thank you very much again for your openness. Let's continue the conversation in different spaces here at IGF. So thank you very much.
[ Applause ]