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: I can hear you. Can you hear us?
>> JOHN MORRIS: I can hear you. Can you hear me?
>> Yes, I can hear you loud and clear. I think are we good to go?
>> (Off microphone).
>> Yeah, can you check your mics
>> John, we are on the panel about to start.
>> JOHN MORRIS: Yes, I can. I am all set.
>> There was a bit of a lag, but I guess we can live with that. So great.
So welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to our workshop at IGF 2024. As we have seen, the theme of this particular workshop is Empowering the private sector investments. I am really honoured to be here with you, and I am the moderator. I lead IT in the Kingdom. In today's workshop, we'll explore some critical issues around fostering private sector investment, especially in digital infrastructure. We will begin through this session to provide a unique backdrop to address the pressing need for transparent investment laws and encourage businesses to invest in wider judicial services.
We will examine some key requirements, identify some challenges in governance. We'll also talk a little bit about the high infrastructure costs, Internet access, data privacy, as well as sustainability. And more importantly, we'll discuss some actionable solutions.
The panel will also highlight some best practices in creating transparent legislative models, standardizing policy, and promoting equitable market opportunities.
Together, we aim to uncover strategies that can bridge the gap and pave the way for sustainable digital growth worldwide.
So without further ado, I would like to introduce our panel. We have John Morris, who is a principal at the Internet Society of U.S. joining in remotely.
We have Sareem aZee, the Director of Public Policy at meta. We have a principal and we have Abdulrahman Alshaghdali.
As I usually try to start off by giving you a quick moment to introduce yourselves and your organisations maybe we can start off with John. John, if you can hear us, we are waiting for a quick introduction from your side to kick start our workshop.
>> JOHN MORRIS: Certainly, thank you. Thank you, Hamza, and I hope you can hear me. I am John Morris. I have been focused on Internet law and policy since the early 1990s and previously was the Head of Policy for a United States Government agency, the National telecommunications and information Administration. And I am currently with the Internet Society, which is a global Nongovernmental Organization focused on ensuring that the Internet remains open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. I look forward to the conversation today. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Fantastic. Thank you so much, John. If I can move to Chris.
>> Chris Buckridge: Thank you very much. My name is Chris budgeridge. I have been working for a couple of decades now in the Internet and institutional space. Primarily in the Internet numbers space, APNIC. More recently, I have moved to consulting and have a number of hats on now, but I am also working with the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group.
>> Thanks a lot, Chris. Sarim?
>> SARIM AZIZ: Thanks, everybody, for joining. My name is Sarim. I have only worked in tech, so I don't know what a non tech world looks like. In my last role in Meta, I am currently looking at policy in emerging countries, based in Singapore, so within the Asia Pacific reason. region.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.
>> Thank you. My background is in developing security infrastructure. Spent most of my career working on large infrastructure projects across the EU, some of them in central and east Europe as well. Currently my focus is working on a start up in Malaysia. Our focus is targeting specific needs in developing markets related to data privacy.
>> Thank you so much, gents, for the kind introductions. I have just been informed by the organizers that we do have a little bit more time, so yeah, we look forward to engaging discussions.
Let's get things started. So John, I would like to start off with you. As policy expert, could you please you spoke a little bit about it in your introduction as well. It would be great if you could kick things off by you providing an overview about why private companies often hesitate to invest in essential infrastructure projects, particularly in developing countries? With your experience and global view, what are the primary concerns you have seen them expressing?
>> JOHN MORRIS: Thank you. This is a very important topic.
So whether a company is deciding to construct a massive data centre in a new country or to start up a new online website to serve that country's citizens, one of the most important reasons they hesitate is legal and regulatory uncertainty. If a business cannot predict how it will be treated in a new market, if it doesn't know that it will be treated fairly and predictably, it's likely to avoid that market.
So to encourage investment, a country should, first and foremost, ensure that there is a strong rule of law, environment, system in the country, which means that legal and regulatory obligations are both stable and clear and that they are fairly enforced on all players in the marketplace.
And so the need for legal and regulatory predictability is critical for any company considering a major construction project or planning to hire staff to offer services in the country. But I also want to broaden the conversation because it's not really just about major construction projects or even major foreign investment. The lack of clarity in the legal system can also slow down homegrown innovation by startups in the country. And so to be able to promote homegrown innovation, a country needs to do a number of things. One, again, it needs to have a very strong rule of law environment. It also needs to make sure its citizens are connected to the Internet. Because without the citizens connected to the Internet, there really is no market there. But importantly, it needs to allow start up companies to create new online products and services without prior approvals, without a lot of bureaucratic challenges. And it also needs to provide protections for online companies that host user content. So protections so that they are not being threatened with major fines or jail if a user posts inappropriate content.
And finally, just one additional point before I wrap up. You know, it's very important for that country to ensure that data can flow into and out of the country without significant obstacles. I mean, ultimately, the Internet is a global system, and for it to work, for it to be able to use resources around the world, the data must be able to flow in and out. So those are just some starting points to start this conversation. I look forward to further thoughts.
>> Thank you, John. Appreciate that. There is obviously a lot to unpack. I think you hit on some key themes there, and we will did he believe double click on some of them. Thanks a lot for sharing those expecteds. I think that's a great way we can start our panel.
Sarim, I would like to touch on one of the points that John mentioned. I think probably you, given Meta's global presence, it's important for the audience to understand how does Meta navigate uncertainty in different regions, and how do such uncertainties influence decisions, especially on infrastructure investments?
>> SARIM AZIZ: Thank you, and thanks to John for an excellent overview for all the reasons why companies like Meta considered. He also touched on everything I would look at. I would add it's upon for countries to understand, when we see infrastructure, I do think sometimes we get caught up with the tangibles data centre. Or the most common I hear is, oh, when are you going to open an office? Just like the presence of a sales office is suddenly an investment. I think there's a lack of understanding that offices are commercial entities that are meant to, you know, obviously, have commercial interests. So there's commercial opportunity, of course, companies will open offices. But there seems to be this notion that just because there's an office that there's investment happening, which I think is a bit of a distraction. But I think just to take a step back, for a company like Meta, yes, there's infrastructure investments, for storage and processing. There's transport investments in terms of getting subsidy and terrestrial fibre because it's not just the data centre, data needs to flow within the country and through the country. It's the delivery which really highlights the user experience. So the pairing and caching systems that need to work for your content and user experience to be cost effective and efficient. But I think the last piece and John mentioned with the website. I would like to put that into a bucket, which is the intangibles; right? That's basically what I call products, services, platforms, programmes. These are the real investments in the digital world that companies bring. Whether or not the latest cutting edge AI tool, is it going to be available in your market or not, to make that AI tool available in your market in any country requires huge amount of investment. Training that model, localizing it, making sure it works for local businesses in a specific market, just because some you know, I think there's a sense that a product launch or product development is easy. And just because it's available in Europe or the U.S., that it, by default, should be available in most of the world. That is not the case. There has to be additional development that has to happen, product development.
That, for myself, I think for Meta, as John said, we tend to innovate and test out new products and features in countries where there's predictability. We are less likely to bring a new feature, a new product, a new cutting edge, frontier technology in a place where the regulatory regime is uncertain. That can hamper innovation and growth, both for us, but also for the legal system.
I want to say I think the local digital economy lastly is the the success of the local ecosystem is just tied to the success for platforms like Meta. There is no world where Meta is seen as winning in a market if the local ecosystem is failing. That just doesn't happen. It's a win win situation because local businesses, local ecosystems thrive, that's good for Meta, that's good for the Internet overall.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks fantastic. Thanks a lot for sharing these very fantastic points about Meta's strategy and what kind of thought process goes in because the innovation and, more importantly, I think the localisation of the innovation.
I'd like to turn to Chris now. Chris, you know, obviously, it's a very multifaceted discussion. We heard some views from folks. I wanted to get your view on a subject that has come up in terms of fragmented governance structures. Often, it's an impedement to, you know, where we are looking at multiple stakeholders across the public and the private sector. So from your experience, you know, how can a fragmented governance structure, involving multiple stakeholders with different agendas, be stream looend to streamlined to create a cohesive framework? Feel free to give examples from the wide purview that you have.
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you very much. I want to go back to the points that have been made, particularly about what actually encourages investment in terms of a regulatory framework. As he said, certainty is one of the really big factors, and that's something that can really be undermined by that sort of fragmentation that you are talking about.
Fragmentation is a very broad term, a very broad issue that's been a very focused subject for Internet Governance discussions, digital policy discussions in the last few years. In many ways, fragmentation is the antithesis of the Internet. The Internet is global. It is unified. It allows information to all come together via a single protocol. Fragmentation is that's something we need to bear in mind in looking to take advantage of what the Internet can offer while also trying to meet policy needs.
So I think if we are talking about certainty, there are a few things that governments and regulators and legislators can do to help provide that certainty. One is, obviously, providing clear, positive plans. I think we've seen a lot of that developing in recent years, whether it's been through cybersecurity strategies, AI strategies, digital strategies more broadly. I think governments are really adopting that idea of, okay, we are going to lay down some frameworks and some guidelines and give private sector the certainty and the indication that they need to work with us. I think the other is maintaining that open communication with the private sector. So we are here at the Internet Governance Forum this week. The theme of that, as the MAG played out earlier, is Building our Multi stakeholder Future. That multi stakeholder ideal is really, I think, one very effective way to achieve that open communication between different stakeholders, between government and the private sector especially. Basically, it provides clarity on all sides. It's not to say that all sides have the same role. There is that very fundamental idea coming from WSIS 20 years ago of stakeholders acting in their own respective remitts and responsibilities. So the role of government is very different to the role of private sector, very different to the role of civil society. But we need to find a way for those different roles to intersect, to interface with each other, and come up with the best models.
And I think there are a lot of different models, and that's something else we've seen in the last few years, is people trying out different approaches.
I'm based in the European Union. We are certainly seeing the European Commission trying out a range of different approaches to how they can work with private sector, with multi stakeholder community. Some of them have worked very well. There's the directorate general on connectivity has a sort of ongoing multi stakeholder group that they convene every three or four months, which has been really useful in giving a heads up as to what's coming, giving people some clue as to when they can intervene and what might be the pressing issues. Others I think haven't worked so well, particularly if it's a political hot button issue, you might see that process or that sort of engagement process, get short shrift. From Australia, there was discussion recently about new Australian legislation, which for various political reasons came through very quickly. Probably didn't have quite the engagement with private sector that it might have. But this is something we see happening all over the world. I think those are the sort of scenarios that we need to take into account.
I think the final thing I would say is that kind of engagement comes from both sides. It needs to be government bringing private sector into their discussions, their deliberations. But it also needs to be going to where private sector are and meet with them. So I think it's not about one side coming into the trench. It's about everyone finding various spaces where they can meet and basically build that trust and that cooperation.
>> MODERATOR: Fantastic. Thanks a lot, Chris. I think you have articulated some key insights there. You know, I would like to go to Artem now. Artem, you know, obviously, you have as a start jup found a start up founder, I am sure how you look at this is very different. So we are very keen to heard about your story, and in your opinion, what specific measures or incentives have you seen in developing markets that touch upon certain things that the gentleman spoke about, like building trust and encouraging transparency in the legislative process?
>> ARTEM KRUZHILIN: Thank you. I actually would like to thank the guys because while you say there are some differences, what they have done is set the scene for what I was thinking about. At the same time, it is more specific. Whereas you guys mentioned more things related to strategy. Maybe I am slightly closer to the ground.
I think from my end, the first and fundamental thing to mention, not a shorter term project, but building out a broader approach to this whole question. Given startups in a year, but also long term solutions they can envision for themselves.
Our long term project is based in Malaysia. I think the country has done genuinely exemplary work in terms of creating an environment for startups. Its overall combination of a framework that exists for development and also created not fragmented, but actually unified government bodies that then help support the digital infrastructure.
In ma slay that, there is the digital economy corporation, which took under itself all of the initiatives related to overashling work and connecting both the startups work themselves and also connecting those to legislative issues that the government is trying to address.
In the end of the day, what it means is that this broad range of agencies created an environment where there is constant ongoing bilateral communication between both State and startups. And I think it's the sheer number of opportunities that are created as part of this that then creates an environment where people can really start working well together. And I think the really, really important work mentioned here is trust. I think it's very easy for people in my position to say that we want these things from the State and all of that. But I think it's also important that there is also environment where the State can trust that we will deliver on the things that are important for it. And part of these agencies that are mentioned and part of the ability to have the ongoing conversation is that it's not just the case of us getting information about what is necessary, but it's also a question of the State understanding what is our progress in dealing with the specific high priority issues that are being raised as topics of discussion. For us, it creates a future where there is financial security, and we know that there are revenue streams that we can hope for. At the same time, the state then can expect that we will deal with the specific issues as part of their agenda.
>> MODERATOR: Thanks. I think your on the ground view augments the points raised by other folks on the panel.
One of the things that has been consistent, something that all four of you have spoken to, is about potentially conflicts between some of the national laws and international standards. And from what we have seen, these are often cited as barriers for that one unified global Internet policy as such.
So I'd like to turn to Sarim here. Sarim, I think you touched about it a little bit in your opening remarks, but I would like to do a little bit of a double click on how does Meta approach managing restrictive policies in the market with limited digital access? And from your purview, what are some of the what role can policymakers play in bridging this disparity between developing as well as developed nations?
>> SARIM AZIZ: Thank you, Hamza. I think the easiest thing to do is it hinders progress and growth and innovation. But I do want to say it's not just markets with limited access; right? So as Chris was mentioning, the EU has gone from sort of testing a few, but developed countries are going through testing and learning from their mistakes. Meta just launched one of our most cutting edge models recently, lambA 3.2 for AI, called the multimodal model, which can see. So the lambA model can identify things. We did not make that model available in Europe because of the regulatory environment. So I just want to say this is not a unique issue just for markets with limited access. We quoted explicitly that. We don't believe the regulatory environment in Europe is conducive for us to innovate with that technology. We launched for the rest of the world. In fact, limited markets with limited access have access to that technology mainly because they haven't regulated or they are still taking a wait and see approach to see what they are going to do.
Specifically to the access issue, I think we have to be very clear on access. One of the things that Meta's done on connective access, we invested in the inclusive intevrnt index, which ranks 100 countries on how they are doing on access to the Internet. One is, yes, availability, which we talked about. And the affordability of Internet but I think we often forget about the other two, which is the readiness, are the citizens ready to adopt? What do they need to be digital citizens? And lastly, is there relevance? Have we had startups, digital platforms, have they given them the relevant services and tools that they need to be successful?
So I guess those are opportunities. When we talk about a market, in emerging countries and markets that I cover, one of the programmes we have done is we have partnered with government and the telecom operators to actually look at increasing access. So we have a programme where people who have concerns with the Internet, maybe it's portability, maybe it's the fact that they don't have the latest iPhone, we partner with them to make sure even if they run out of data, they can still access and stay connected. Right? And this is actually available in a lot of countries across emerging countries that need it. And it's a good programme. It helps a telco to retain customers. But the idea is not to keep them there. It's not to give them free Internet. The idea is that, look, you can stay connected, but it's text only and it's image only. Of course, you want a rich experience because that's more meaningful. So that's one example.
I think there's lots of other models, I think, that Chris also mentioned where bringing together the academia, telco, civil society. New Zealand is often quoted as a good model where we've seen that civil society plays its role, and NetSafe is a government deciI goity in aed designated CFO that has developed a voluntary code for industry to follow. So it's great that industry follows the code, and the oversight is from civil society, and it's mandated by the government. That model works perfectly well. We encourage models like that this brings these stakeholders together.
>> HAMZA NAQSHBANDI: Thank you, fantastic. Thank you for that, Sarim. I think you outlined a few key pockets of stakeholders when it comes to synergies for that effect publ private role.
I would like to turn it back to John. John, from your experience, one thing that we can agree on is we are living in a fast evolving digital landscape, where what is relevant now, in the speed of change in the world of technology, might not be relevant in the coming years.
So from your experience, you know, I would like to get two views from you. One is who, in your opinion, are some of the key stakeholders in the infrastructure development regulatory process? And you know, how can we ensure that, you know, synergies are maintained while addressing this regulatory uncertainty?
Also, from your experience, maintaining continuous dialogue is critical; right? In order to keep some of those legislations and regulations relevant. What would be a best practice that you would like to share with us in that regard?
>> JOHN MORRIS: Thank you so much. This is a critical issue that Sarim, actually, I think already answered some key elements there.
You know, let me just repeat something I just heard from Sarim. That governments need to be very aware that decisions they make, by making decisions without having listened to the broad stakeholder community, may end up really chilling investment and innovation in the country. It's really important to appreciate that as one makes policies, as one sets rules, it's critical to be talking with all of the different stakeholders. And who are those stakeholders? Well, you know, honestly, my answer to that is that it's really everyone who is involved in the ecosystem. So that includes the network operators, the telecoms, the Internet service providers. It includes representatives from technical standard setting bodies to talk about how technology is evolving. It includes online service providers, you know, both like Meta, but like Artem's smaller startups. It's critical to have both the very, very large kind of globally dominant, globally influencing companies. But also to have the local innovators, the people serving the local needs of the local citizens. It's important to have them in the room. They may not have as many people that they can send to government meetings because they are such a small organisation, but there often can be associations of start up companies. And you know, if in a country there are not associations of start up companies, I hope that startups think about creating associations to be able to go talk to government, to have the bandwidth to talk to government.
Of course, the Internet Society is a Nongovernmental Organization. We think that NGOs, nonprofits absolutely have a critical seat at the table. Because sometimes they can be pushing back. They can be pushing back both against a government overreach, but also sometimes against a corporate, a company industry kind of not overreach, but attempting to do something that really is not going to be as broadly healthy for the ecosystem.
And then, I mean, finally, to be very clear, as I really started, governments need to be at the table. And that includes, you know, people from the national government. But there may well be local interest, depending on what's involved. Certainly, in the task of getting a nation connected, having local communities represented in conversations. So that really says everyone who would be affected by this, it would be good to welcome them into a conversation.
And then how to keep that conversation going? Well, I think Chris highlighted in terms of pointing out some good ideas in Europe, where you know, there are ongoing discussions, not just once a year. And certainly, the IGF, this IGF, is a tremendous global forum once a year to get together. This should be happening every month, every two months, every three months, at a regular pace with every government to be discussing what is government concerned about? And that allows industry, it allows civil society to start thinking about, well, how can we react to the government's concerns? How can we improve the situation?
So it really the dialogue really does need to be in every direction. So I hope that answered the question. And I look forward to hearing what others have to say.
>> HAMZA NAQSHBANDI: It did, John. Thank you very much. I will come back for concluding remarks shortly.
I want to go back to one of the traits you alluded today in terms of the startups. I will start with Artem and turn to Chris for the last question before we conclude.
Artem, from a business perspective, from your perspective, what roles do startups, SMEs play in influencing and engaging with the ongoing process? From your experience and the success that you've had, how can the voice of the SMEs be better incorporated?
>> ARTEM KRUZHILIN: Thank you. It depends quite a lot on the region. It's not the same situation everywhere. I think having spent a significant part of my career working on national infrastructure projects across the EU, especially which were focused on digital forensics infrastructure, what we often saw was that the States would often adopt very much a top down approach to how things should be done. And on one hand, they achieve results just because of shear volume of investment, but at the same time, they miss opportunities for greater success that they could have had just by involving some of the technical experts from the private field. And just trying to implement some of these policies, processes, and procedures with people who have more hands on experience.
What it leads to in ways, some countries, even nowadays, there's significant backlog in digital investigations. Yet, at the same time, even some States that you wouldn't necessarily expect to be leading in this, we have worked on an infrastructure project that, for the first time, created a cross agency collaborative environment for people to work on these cases. So a significant reduction in their workload, significant progress in dealing with the backlog as well.
And in a way, what it means is that the countries that are able to adopt this approach that is more collaborative, end up with, let's say, better bang for buck in terms of the State investment in these projects.
At the same time, I guess from my more Eastern experience in Southeast Asia, in developing markets, what we saw was really just in case of local governments trying to adopt the GDPR style regulations, which, of course, have been a huge challenge for most of the countries around the world. Especially the adoption side of it. The legislative has been fairly easy, but then controlling it has been pretty hard.
And what we saw was that States, again, using some of these agencies that have mentioned before, through sooishs Malaysia cybersecurity Malaysia, for example, in the case of country led, what they have done is encouraged ongoing collaborative environment. When people discuss the legislation, when people discuss the standards. And how they can be implemented.
The reason why it's so important in the developing countries is that while the issues that pertain and kind of end up winding in most of the users' lapse are the same universally across the world, the financial capacity of some of the actors isn't quite the same. And a lot of countries don't necessarily have again, either SMEs or some of the larger corporates who are able to invest a significant and, for example, privacy infrastructure, use U.S. based solutions, because purely from a pricing point of view, it's difficult.
So in the case of some of the countries in ASEAN region, what has been really refreshing is that they brought in SMEs and startups early on in the process. Suggested that we are involved, again, in both the regulatory, but also how we can start to tackle some of these problems. What it meant for us was we were able to look not just six months or a year ahead, we are able to see the future in the start up for the coming years. We don't only feel we will deal with this one project just this time and then we'll be left out in the cold. It creates an environment where a country can move past these shorter term projects, shorter term issues, and actually create a long term future where the startups help address the issues of the State and the issues of the citizens in the long term and actually from all sides.
>> HAMZA NAQSHBANDI: Thank you very much. The last question, in the interest of time for us, is Chris. Chris, I think one thing again that came out in the panel is that need to balance innovation and investment. So from your experience, are there some examples that you would like to share in terms of countries, where they have implemented regulations that kind of fostered both innovation and investments? And what are some of the lesson that is we could learn from that?
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Yeah, this question got me wondering and gave me reason to look. Being here in Saudi at the moment, my experience, Saudi has been a really interesting example in terms of the kind of regulations and legislation it's put in place, particularly regarding something like 86 adoption. It was a very interesting opportunity looking back. Since I have taken my eye off the ball a little on that, we have really seen Saudi move to a really global leadership position. And that's fascinating.
The really interesting thing for me about that is that I know, going back to my earlier comments about some of the multi stakeholder and about different parts of different stakeholders working together, it was really back I think in 2007 I am not sure of the exact date where it was both the CITC and the Ministry of Communications and IT set up an IPv6 Task Force. It brought in really sort of an all of industry and government approach to develop the strategy.
Now, that didn't have great success overnight. It really was a few years before you sort of start to I mean, that's true around the world as well. It was a slow build for IPv6 adoption. But when it did kick in, you really saw it start to take off almost exponentially, and around 2020, it really, as I say, Sally has emerge add real leader in that IPv6 space. And I think that's really Saudi, not Sally)
Again, to come back to trust and come back to trusting that it's a longer term project. It's not about having one meeting and saying, okay, we've got our direction. It's not even about having one meeting every year and saying, okay, we've done our bit for engagement. It's about having an ongoing communication, discussion, pivoting when you need to, and making those steps.
The other example I would give, which is perhaps a slightly scary one, but is the European Union and its NIST 2 directive. I think the reason I sort of highlight that one, because I think it is can be we will see as a very good example, because security really is high on the agenda for, certainly, governments, but also users. Voters, as you might call them in a governmental situation. But there were issues or there was language in that initial draft that was really problematic. Really have been very detrimental to an open, depoliticized sort of open infrastructure environment.
We and it wasn't just myself, it was a real sort of across the community were able to work with the European Union's institutions to improve that. To make sure that by the time it got to the sort of implementation or the adoption of the law, at least, it was looking a lot better. And so that kind of process, where you know, you can point out the things that seem logical at the time but really might have some unintended consequences, that's really important, and as it, again, builds trust that government is not going to do something rash or on the spur of the moment that might make the investment environment, the innovation environment, more difficult.
>> HAMZA NAQSHBANDI: Thank you. That was fantastic. I think it's been a very fruitful discussion. Just to conclude, if I can turn to each of you and, you know, maybe we can start with you, John. John, so a concluding remark, if you could implement one major policy change or initiative to invest some of the current gaps that you all alluded to in governments, investment frameworks, what would it be and why? I know I am putting you on the spot there. But if you could leave us with a concluding remark, that would be great. The same question, we are starting off with you, John.
>> JOHN MORRIS: Sure. Thanks, and thanks for this great panel discussion.
You know, my answer is not new initiative. It is to really ensure that the Internet remains open and globally connected, secure and trustworthy. And that we depend on and rely on a bottoms up discussion of exactly how to move forward and how to grow and expand the Internet.
So kind of maintaining the multi stakeholder approach is just a critical, critical element for investment and innovation.
>> HAMZA NAQSHBANDI: Thank you very much. Fantastic. Thank you for joining. It's been a real pleasure. Sairm, if Sarim, if I can ask for your concluding remarks.
>> SARIM AZIZ: Sometimes the issue I think is too many policies that are implemented, it leads to more challenges.
I want to say I want to highlight a model that has been working well, actually, including in Europe, the U.S., and Asia, a programme we call Open Loop. The idea was to bring policymakers, tech companies, startups together to make everyone comfortable with the idea of policy prototyping; right? How do we improve the quality of regulations and actually be able to test them? Like no one has figured this out. Like how do we do that in a sandbox safe way? So Open Loop has done this quite well on a few issues, including AI. The one in Singapore was very successful, including another one. But to give you an example, the open Loop programme brought together the media com development authority, the com regulatory, the PDC, which is the personal data Commission, and 12 startups across Asia Pacific. And the topic was AI tans parnsy and explainability. And this was not a one day thing. It was a programme that lasted months. But the Singapore government was able to actually see what does the start up think? What does the tech company's think? And what regulators feel? And then they were able to make informed decisions on that. No one expects to have this out the first time you regulate. We have to be comfortable with policy prototyping, testing, working with industry, civil society, academia, and startups.
>> HAMZA NAQSHBANDI: Thank you. Fantastic. Thank you, Sarim. Chris?
>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: I am coming from the technical community. The term "interoperability" is very central there. I think particularly in a lot of the recent AI related discussions, there's been talk about regulatory interoperability. I think that's a really key area. I think we are talking about a global Internet. When we talk about digital services, we are almost, by definition, talking beyond the traditional bounds of national legislation. So that kind of communication towards some level of interoperability between different regulatory regimes is, I think, really critical.
>> HAMZA NAQSHBANDI: Thank you. Fantastic, Chris. Finally, Artem, you have the last word.
>> ARTEM KRUZHILIN: Actually, to me it comes as no surprise that we are all suggesting the same thing, in a way. For me, to come back to something more specific that ties in to my experiences, I think it's been a breath of fresh air to see unified agency responsible for the interaction between both SMEs and larger companies. Maybe I would suggest that other governments also consider having this overarching umbrella organisation that would look at how to best interact first on the legislative and the business side of things. Because it certainly has made things an awful lot easier for me over the past few months. It really does work. Perhaps it can help other countries as well.
>> HAMZA NAQSHBANDI: Thank you very much. I hope people have found insights. Thank you for having us at IGF 2024 Riyadh. I would like to thank you for your contributions, and with that, we'd like to conclude the panel. Thank you very much, and have a great conference. Thank you.