跳至主要內容

IGF 2017 highlights need for greater dialogue



Recently I participated remotely in my first Internet Governance Forum — IGF 2017 — which was held at the United Nations Office in Geneva, Switzerland from 18 to 21 December.

From the comfort of our offices and homes, I (along with 1,660 other remote participants) was able to listen to and participate in a range of multistakeholder discussions surrounding emerging technologies and Internet governance-related issues on the theme of Shape Your Digital Future!

Gaps between technical communities and policy makers

Dialogue is an important component of the multistakeholder model — multiple parties come together to contextualize a problem and resolve it through information exchange. That said, it is difficult for different groups to let go of preconceptions.

In some sessions, there were participants that were solely of the opinion that policy is the first priority, and that technical problems can’t be stated in the policy or explained to people.

These people need to think widely; they also need to have the ability to translate what people want in policies and adjust them accordingly. That said, it is difficult to translate opinions from technical communities to policy makers, which only strengthens the need for clear communication and dialogue.

Gaps between developed and developing economies

The Internet has become a commonplace utility for many. In my home, Taiwan, Internet penetration is among the highest and most affordable in the world. However, for many people the Internet is still a luxury.

I found from participating at the IGF that this gap, between developed and developing economies, brings with it varying priorities:
  • Developed economies talked about trust, cybersecurity, governance and policies, surveillance, ethical issues, and emerging technologies such as the Internet of Things and Blockchain.
  • Developing economies talked about infrastructure, rights to access the Internet, affordable Internet, quality education, as well as human rights and safety issues.
Needless to say, the discussion about the Internet has evolved from the haves and have-nots, which is why such multistakeholder mechanisms like the IGF are important for planning for the future development of the Internet. Different stakeholders sit together to discuss and find the solution, and people can learn from each other and consider other people’s perspectives, needs and experiences.

Language may be the largest barrier

More than 2,000 participants from 142 economies, representing all stakeholder groups and regions, attended IGF 2017 in person.

The IGF provides translation services to allow attendees — in person and remotely — to understand speakers so long as they speak in any of the six UN official languages: English, Chinese, French, Arabic, Spanish and Russian — most sessions were in English.

Although this allows a large majority of people to easily share and understand each other’s views, it does impact the experience of those whom such language is a second or third language, particularly those from Asia Pacific economies. Some topics are difficult enough to explain in your own language let alone trying to interpret their meaning for another language.

Obviously, it would be great to get more people adding to the dialogue in their native language, but how can we make it more convenient?

Besides inclusion of language, respect for religion, culture and customs is also important to encourage people to share their opinions.

I learned how to work on the Internet

IGF 2017 wasn’t all about listening to discussions. I was able to participate in working groups, including the NRIs working group. It was a great experience to collaborate with people (whom I’ve never met in different economies and time zones) on working documents, and discuss issues on mailing lists and in online meetings.


Wish for more people to join IGF

It is difficult for young people in Asian economies, particularly students, to sit with government officials and talk about Internet or government policies — it can be overwhelming and they may feel they do not have enough experience to share.

At the closing plenary, Jianne Soriano said, “Being young is not a disadvantage, it is a strength.” It’s great that the IGF understands the need to include the opinions and ideas of younger people in discussions that are ultimately shaping their future.

This message is something that I’m looking forward to taking back to and implementing at the Taiwan IGF, and to hopefully encourage more younger participants to IGF 2018.


This article is published on APNIC Blog. Robert Mitchell, the editor has edited it.

留言

此網誌的熱門文章

各國政府在談資料跨境傳輸時,台灣需要什麼?

保護個人資料可能是各行各業的一個重要議題,不止增加了企業的資安相關成本也增加了法遵成本。尤其是需要跨國傳輸(個人)資料的企業,除了要配合各國的資料保護法(規範、規則)外,也要擔心資料外洩事件後續的成本,還有許多額外的行政手續。許多國家已經感受到資料流動的重要性,也紛紛的透過數位經濟協議、各種雙邊或多邊協議,來減輕企業跨境傳輸資料時的相關成本,以促進(數位)經濟發展,例如2018年時,美國、墨西哥、加拿大已簽署「美國-墨西哥-加拿大協定」(United States, Mexico, and Canada Agreement),讓這三個國家的企業可以在忠北美境內自由傳輸資料。 2019年由日本前首安倍晉三在世界經濟論壇和2019年的G20大阪峰會中提出提出「Data Free Flow with Trust」(簡稱DFFT),其核心概念是「基於信任的資料流通」。這樣的概念主要是建立彼此信任的跨境資料傳輸,促進資料自由流動,同時確保對隱私、安全和智慧財產權之信任。 在2019年G20大阪峰會時就已談出了DFFT的發展概念,2021年時已擬定發展的藍圖。當時也討論了所謂的資料在地化、資料主權等議題,並且也有著「資料的連結與使用是可提升生產力的重要因素,限制跨境資料流動,會是國際貿易體系的沉重成本之一,且資料在地化的要求可能會提高企業的生產與法遵成本」之共識。 到了2023年,因當時聯合國網路治理論壇(UN IGF)在日本京都舉辦、及G7日本廣島峰會的緣故,DFFT的概念再次被提出,且被熱烈討論著。G7廣島峰會裡則是建立了夥伴關係機制 (Institutional Arrangement for Partnership,IAP),並由OECD擔任協調的單位,來建立所謂的IAP;日本的JICA(Japan International Cooperation Agency)也在UN IGF 中提出執行 DFFT 之相關倡議。 如果有興趣進一步了解DFFT,可以閱讀: Digital Agency, Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT) , World Economist Forum, Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT): Paths towards Free and Trusted Data Flows 網路上的資料很多

聊聊台灣的人工智慧政策發展進度-歐美國家

明天 (520)是台灣第 16 任總統上任的日子。我們在上個星期五,也就是 5 月17 日的晚上,曾經經歷過2014年 318 學運的人,幾乎又有同樣的感受覺,彷彿又回到10年前,國民黨準備通過與中國不明不白的服務貿易協定。台灣人在接下來要面對的,是一個朝小野大的治理體系,唯一慶幸的是,我們可以全民監督政府,可以線上關注立法院又在上演什麼戲碼。 在 18 日下午幫觀音蓮換盆後,有個感觸:「大家都有生活要過,如果不是國會失能,誰想再走上街頭?」如果我們這一代都被教育為溫良謙恭儉讓,那怎麼立法院還能打成這樣? 回到新總統宣布內閣成員的那天,出現所謂「行動創新的AI內閣」,我始終無法理解這表示內閣自動化還是內閣AI化?我在媒體的報導裡,只能理解將延續智慧政府的願景,人工智慧 (AI) ,似乎是提升搜尋引擎關鍵字用的流行用字。 簡單查詢一下,台灣近期關於人工智慧的相關法規、規範、指引、辦法、原則,除 2018 年提出所謂的「 AI小國大戰略 」、 2019年時有立委提出應擬「 人工智慧發展基本法 」、2023年8月由國科會所擬的「 使用生成式AI參考指引(草案) 」,國內腳步最快的監管機關應該是金融管理委員會,在2023年10月公布「 金融業運用人工智慧(AI)之核心原則及政策 」,有相關的指引和配套措施。 當其他國家為避免發展人工智慧傷害人民而陸續建立事前管制的法規時,我有點擔心,台灣的法規進度在哪裡?如果從0到10,10是歐盟AI Act的程度,那台灣會在哪裡?台灣所謂的 AI內閣,有什麼 AI 操作或監管指引嗎? 關於全球 AI政策發展的觀察站 有興趣的人可以多閱讀 OECD 的 OECD.AI ,這裡面收集相對完整的全球立法資訊,自我 2019 年開始看這個網站到現在,這幾年網站內的內容增加非常多。 年初時一場線上研討會,參與者建議除了原有的功能外,也可以再提供一些政策研析,畢竟 OECD裡有許多的專家,不僅僅是討論及觀測經濟發展而已,這個意見很快被採納,但寫文章需要時間,所以他們也利用一些AI功能可以搜集收章,讓網站出現大量的文章。今年除了新增文章外,也看到有他們正在全球觀測所謂的 AI Incidents ,使用者可以透過網站了解全球因為開發或使用人工智慧系統所出現的實際危害事件,也 定義AI Incidents和 AI Hazard的不同 。免費,每個人都可以

關於花精的FAQ(4)--使用篇

這部份有十六個Q & A,內容很多,我想應該可以解決在使用花精上最常見的疑問。 花精是芳香療法嗎?是保養品嗎?是藥品嗎? 花精應該算是順勢療法的一種,可以外用也可以食用,不能說是保養品,因為沒有保養品用在皮膚上的直接效果,可以確定的是,花精並不是藥品也不含所謂藥品的效用,但它確實能藉由自花朵萃取出來的能量來平衡人心中的負面情緒。 花精買回家之後要怎麼使用? 通常買回家的花精我們被稱為Stock Bottle,裡面有濃度較高的酒精,所以只要放在陰涼處通常可以放很久,但是如果你的居住地方較悶熱,還是建議放在冰箱裡會比較恰當。平常我們在使用的被稱為Treatment Bottle,調配方式如下: 你要先有一個30ml的玻璃瓶,要有滴管,可以少於30ml,買回家後先用沸水煮5分鐘。注意滴管部位的塑膠不要放到熱水裡。 在已消毒過的30ml玻璃瓶中加入礦泉水或是乾淨的飲用水。 從每個花精的Stock bottle裡各取出兩滴花精加到這30ml的瓶子裡。 每天喝四次,每次取四滴,加入水或是飲料裡,或是直接滴四滴到嘴巴裡。 如果你要搭配急救花精的話,加入Treatment Bottle中的急救花精是四滴,其他的花精還是以每種兩滴為主。 我已經有使用其他的花精了,我可以混用巴哈花精嗎? 原則上是不建議。像是如果你本身已經有澳洲花精的急救花精,就不建議再混合巴哈花精的急救花精。 花精在調配上最多幾種?可不可以三十八種全用? 一般而言一瓶Treatment Bottle裡最多不超過六種花精,因為太多的花精可能會讓你看不清楚自己真正需要的是什麼?也解決不了根本的問題,可能短期內改善了某種情緒但長期而言是沒有改變的,也有可能會互相抑制。但因為每個人的情況不同,有些人可能只需要一種或兩種;有些人可能需要調配到七種或八種,甚至有些人需要三十八種全部,當我們真正的了解自己的情緒問題出在哪裡時,就知道適合的花精到底有哪些,再慢慢的排除掉不需要的花精。 用錯花精會不會有不良的影響? 不會,花精是很溫和的東西,簡單的就成份上而言,它就是水而已,頂多加上了白蘭地防腐,特別一些的說法是,花精多了自然界的能量。花精所改善的是我們的負面情緒或是較黑暗的性格,如果選擇了不適合的花精也不會有什麼不好的影響。 如果我已經有其他品牌的急救花精,而且還有很多,我一定要再重新買巴哈急救花精嗎? 不用,選擇最適合自己