Markdown from IGF pages

2026-09-18 12:50:59 +02:00
commit 26db01c712
165 changed files with 137619 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #115 AI sovereignty: what for the people?
+
+## Description
+
+As artificial intelligence infrastructure expands globally, measures to promote sovereignty in the digital realm often center on states and corporations and on the question of who controls compute, data, and models. This approach risks sidelining the communities whose land, water, energy, and labor sustain this infrastructure. Data centers and the supply chains behind AI (from lithium mining to submarine cables) are frequently sited in the Global Majority or in marginalized territories of the Global Minority, generating environmental and social costs that are unevenly distributed.
+**This session thus asks:** what would AI sovereignty look like if rooted in community self-determination, environmental justice, and participatory governance, beyond state or corporate control? We bring together perspectives from academia, civil society, private sector and government to examine how communities affected by AI infrastructure can meaningfully shape decisions about its siting, resource use, capacity-building, and benefit-sharing.
+The session combines short interventions with a facilitated, interactive discussion designed to surface concrete cases, ranging from data center-related water and energy conflicts to community-led digital infrastructure alternatives. In doing so, the session will stimulate debate on where national sovereignty, corporate interests, and community rights align or conflict, with a focus on territories in the Global Majority.
+We deliberately seek diversity of geography, stakeholder group, gender, and disciplinary background among speakers and discussants to avoid a one-sided narrative and instead surface genuine tensions and trade-offs. For this purpose, we bring together representatives from multiple continents and stakeholder groups to share their insights and discuss the topic with the IGF community.
+The session responds to this year's IGF theme by asking who bears responsibility for the social and environmental costs of the "age of intelligence," and how governance frameworks can be reoriented to include those most affected by AI's material footprint.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+1. How can affected communities shape policies about the technologies and infrastructures they want, as well as their siting, resourcing (energy, water, land), and governance?
+2. Where do "AI sovereignty" agendas align with, or conflict against, the self-determination and environmental justice claims of local communities, especially those hosting AI infrastructure?
+3. What governance mechanisms can ensure equitable distribution of AI's economic benefits and environmental burdens across the value chain?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The session aims to produce a clearer, cross-regional mapping of the tensions between top-down "AI sovereignty" agendas and bottom-up community claims, drawing on concrete cases presented by speakers and audience contributions. Specific outcomes will be the publication of a session report documenting the cases, tensions, and proposed governance approaches discussed, as well as the creation of a network for promoting communities’ participation in the development of policies concerning AI.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** The session will have a fishbowl format. After a short introduction from the moderators, they will invite each panelist to, for up to 5 minutes, answer one of the policy questions according to their experience and expertise.
+After the first round of inputs, the second phase will last 30 minutes. Anyone from the online or on-site audience can take an empty seat to make a point, challenge a panelist, or bring in a case the panel hasn't covered. After speaking, participants are expected to yield the seat if others are waiting. Moderators will keep the queue moving, periodically restate the policy questions to keep the conversation focused, and  actively promote balanced participation in terms of gender, stakeholder group, and geographical origin, keeping the discussion as diverse as possible.
+In the end, moderators will invite each of the original panelists to name one concrete commitment or next step.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** One of the empty chairs of the fishbowl, which will be reserved specifically for participants other than the panelists, will be reserved for a queued online participant, with the online moderator monitoring the chat/hand-raise queue and physically relaying that person into the room via the zoom call on a screen. Moderators will thus alternate: if the last person to take an empty seat was on-site, they will bring in the next queued online participant before taking another onsite one, so the room doesn't default to whoever is physically fastest to move, and vice-versa. Online participants will be frequently invited to actively join the fishbowl, and not just observe it.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** José Renato Laranjeira de Pereira, University of Bonn's Sustainable AI Lab
+**Organizer 2:** Felipe da Silva, 🔒Laboratory of Public Policy and Internet - LAPIN
+**Organizer 3:** Camila Silva,  Laboratory of Public Policy and Internet – LAPIN
+**Organizer 4:** Moraes Thiago, VUB
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Anita Gurumurthy, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 2:** Costa Barbosa Alexandre, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 3:** Cecilia Rikap, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 4:** Risper Onyango, Civil Society, Intergovernmental Organization
+
+## Moderator
+
+José Renato Laranjeira de Pereira, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Camila Silva, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Moraes Thiago, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+6. Clean Water and Sanitation
+7. Affordable and Clean Energy
+9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
+11. Sustainable Cities and Communities
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #156 Digital Trust: Standards-Led Toolkit for Emerging Economies
+
+## Description
+
+The rapid expansion of advanced digital technologies in general, and Artificial Intelligence in particular, is creating new opportunities for participation in global economic, but simultaneously introduces new internet governance challenges. Developing and emerging economies face increasing complexities and systemic risks, particularly regarding cybersecurity vulnerabilities, fragmented data governance, and a lack of national and cross-border interoperability. Addressing these critical governance gaps requires a coherent, scalable and sustainable intervention. International standards provide established frameworks and internationally recognised good practice needed to ensure that this transformation is secure, resilient and inclusive.
+
+This interactive workshop explores how international standards serve as a practical bridge between global digital and AI governance principles and local regulatory frameworks. Drawing on the “Standards-led Digitalization Toolkit” that has been implemented across six key geographies (Brazil, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Vietnam) through a strategic partnership between the UK Government’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) and the British Standards Institution (BSI), under the FCDO’s Digital Access Programme, the session moves beyond theoretical debate into practical experience-sharing.
+
+Participants will hear directly from practitioners in emerging economies who are using standards to build digital trust. The session will also leverage insights from the newly launched guide, “Enabling Digital Transformation through Standards,” providing attendees with an actionable framework to scale secure and inclusive digital transformation.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+A.	How can emerging economies foster technological innovation with the appropriate digital and AI governance strategies to build public trust?
+B.	How can international standards help to overcome the widening global “Digital divide” and build the necessary capability for meaningful participation in an AI-driven digital economy?
+C.	How can policymakers utilise international standards as agile, risk-based tools alongside regulations to mitigate systemic cyber and operational risks across critical sectors?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The session will build consensus on the importance of international standards (including ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management System and ISO/IEC 42001 AI Management System) as agile, risk-based tools to complement technical regulations. This will strengthen alignment between consensus-based global best practices and domestic regulations, empowering governments to enhance national digital environments, embed standards within digital strategies, and improve awareness of their role in managing risk and enabling innovation.
+
+Specific Outputs:
+A.	Promotion of newly launched Joint FCDO-BSI publication “Enabling Digital Transformation through Standards”
+B.	Strategic insights and debates captured during this workshop will directly feed into upcoming capacity-building activities, including the curriculum of AI governance workshops for public and private sector leaders in Brazil, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa.
+
+## Reference Document
+
+Reference Document
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 60
+**Format description:** A 60-minute roundtable format is deliberately chosen to keep the session lively, practical, and focused. The shorter timeframe prevents people from tuning out and ensures we skip the theory to get straight to problem-solving. The roundtable setup is important as it removes the barrier for discussion at the end of the session and allows all participants to talk as equals for constructive discussion.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** A. Drawing on our extensive experience managing major international hybrid events, including the WSIS 2026 Forum, we will have a dedicated online co-moderator will monitor virtual hand-raises and chat, working directly with the room moderator to ensure equal airtime and seamless dialogue between remote and on-site participants.
+
+B. Building on proven best practices from delivering global hybrid sessions, the session is designed around active discussion rather than static presentations. We will ensure clear audio-visual integration, shared access to digital materials, and mirrored interactive exercises so online attendees receive the exact same quality of experience as those in the room.
+
+C. We will use engagement tools such as live polling and/or Mentimeter that integrate with the official IGF event software. Tested and refined in previous international events, this simple approach avoids the risk of technical hiccups while maximising real-time audience participation.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Nahyun Kim, British Standards Institution
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Alessandra Lustrati, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 2:** charles wesonga Juma, Government, African Group
+**Speaker 3:** Jennifer Bisset, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 4:** Nigel Croft, Technical Community, African Group
+**Speaker 5:** Nahyun Kim, Private Sector, Intergovernmental Organization
+
+## Moderator
+
+Nigel Croft, Technical Community, African Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Nahyun Kim, Private Sector, Intergovernmental Organization
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Jennifer Bisset, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
+9.1
+9.c
+10. Reduced Inequalities
+10.2
+10.6
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
+16.6
+16.9
+17. Partnerships for the Goals
+17.16
+17.18
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #174 Who Is That Agent? Trusted AI Agent Identity via the DNS
+
+## Description
+
+The rapid proliferation of autonomous AI agents—software entities capable of taking actions, making decisions, and interacting with services and other agents on behalf of users—presents an urgent and largely unresolved challenge: how do we know who, or what, an agent really is?
+
+Without a trusted, open, and scalable identity layer, the agentic internet risks being overwhelmed by impersonation, fraud, and accountability gaps. This roundtable explores how the Domain Name System (DNS), the internet's foundational and universally deployed naming infrastructure, can serve as that identity layer.
+
+Emerging open standards—including the Agent Name Service (ANS) being developed by GoDaddy and others, and DNS-AID (DNS for AI Discovery)—demonstrate that agent identity, verification, and discovery can be anchored to domain names that operators already own and control. These approaches leverage proven technologies: DNS, DNSSEC, Public Key Infrastructure (PKI/X.509), and DANE, rather than building new centralized registries or proprietary ecosystems.
+
+This session will bring together technical, policy, and industry stakeholders to interrogate the governance and policy dimensions of this approach: Who governs the namespace? How do domain registries and registrars play a role? What accountability mechanisms are needed? How does this interact with existing identity frameworks such as DIDs and LEIs? And how do we ensure this layer remains open, interoperable, and resistant to capture?
+
+Participants will leave with a shared understanding of the technical landscape, key governance gaps, and actionable next steps for multistakeholder engagement.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+Standards fragmentation vs. interoperability: Multiple DNS-based agent identity standards are currently under development (ANS, DNS-AID, DNSid, etc.). What policy mechanisms and multi-stakeholder coordination processes can ensure these converge on open, interoperable, and vendor-neutral outcomes?
+
+Accountability and liability in agentic transactions: When an AI agent causes harm—financial, reputational, or otherwise—how does a DNS-anchored identity framework support attribution, liability assignment, and recourse for affected parties?
+
+**Agent namespace governance:** If AI agent identity is anchored to DNS and domain names, what governance frameworks—across registries, registrars, ICANN, and national regulators—are needed to ensure accountability, prevent abuse, and protect the openness of this layer?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+1. Mapped the current landscape of DNS-based agent identity standards and initiatives (ANS, DNS-AID, DNSid) and identified key points of convergence and divergence.
+
+2. Identified concrete governance gaps at the intersection of DNS infrastructure governance (ICANN, registries, registrars) and the emerging agentic web.
+
+3. Produced a set of recommendations (captured in a session summary/report) for multi-stakeholder bodies—including the IGF, IETF, ICANN, and national regulators—on priorities for open, interoperable, and accountable AI agent identity infrastructure.
+
+4. Advanced multi-stakeholder dialogue between the technical community, private sector, civil society, and governments on the policy dimensions of agentic internet infrastructure.
+
+## Reference Document
+
+Reference Document
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 60
+**Format description:** This session directly addresses the IGF 2026 overarching theme, "Governing the Internet in the Age of Intelligence: Our Shared Responsibility", by examining one of the most foundational—and most overlooked—governance questions of the agentic AI era: how autonomous agents are identified, verified, and held accountable across the open internet. Speakers selected for the session exemplify the IGF & Multistakeholder Ecosystem, including geographically diverse Technical Community, Government, and Civil Society stakeholders.
+
+The Roundtable format will allow speakers to share their expertise, while encouraging collaborative and engaging feedback from diverse IGF participants during the session.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** GoDaddy and DotAsia (.Asia) have extensive experience facilitating and organizing hybrid meetings, including the Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF). The session will have traditional A/V set up on-site, including Zoom participation and any IGF platform tools.
+
+Hybrid Engagement Strategy:
+- A designated online moderator will monitor the virtual queue and relay questions from remote participants.
+- Key discussion prompts will be displayed on screen and shared in the session chat to enable meaningful online participation.
+- A collaborative notes document (e.g., Google Doc or Etherpad) will be open to all participants, onsite and remote, throughout the session.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Edmon Chung, 🔒DotAsia
+**Organizer 2:** Evin Erdogdu, DotAsia Organisation
+**Organizer 3:** Heineman Ashley, 🔒
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Edmon Chung, Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 2:** Jared Sine, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 3:** Wei Chen, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 4:** Wan Sie LEE, Government, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 5:** Sally Wentworth, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Edmon Chung, Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Evin Erdogdu, Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Evin Erdogdu, Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+8. Decent Work and Economic Growth
+9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
+12. Responsible Production and Consumption
+17. Partnerships for the Goals
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #197 Fighting Online Hate: Global Appeals Mechanisms
+
+## Description
+
+Big Tech has changed the way platform moderation works. Meta made sweeping changes to its “Harmful Conduct” community standards. X saw unprecedented levels of hate speech engagement, with persistent year on year increases since 2022. With content moderation and review increasingly becoming AI driven, and with the ever changing enforcement standards becoming politically charged, recourse in terms of the takedown or restoration of content on platforms has become a coin toss at best. The net effect of this has meant that hate speech online has seen a significant uptick.
+However, new enforcement models in India and the EU provide an interesting opportunity to discuss best practices when it comes to appealing social media review decisions and combating hate speech. India has opted for the State oversight route with the introduction of the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC), an online forum for users to appeal decisions. The GAC is staffed by the Executive and passes binding decisions.
+The DSA has created an out-of-court dispute settlement mechanism, where recognized bodies offer an additional opportunity for users to resolve content moderation disputes with online platforms. While the decisions are non-binding in nature, both platforms and users are asked to engage in good faith.
+Additionally, the Meta Oversight Board, an external body that people can appeal to if they disagree with Meta's content enforcement decisions on Facebook, Instagram, or Threads also provides a third avenue.
+This workshop presents an opportunity to understand global best practices in appealing hate speech online. SFLC.in has filed over 75 appeals against hate speech. DAHRD has filed over 400 with Appeals Center, and our findings from the divergent approaches taken by the Global Majority and Global Minority will provide participants a hands-on approach to creating a safer internet, as well as reassessing what platform accountability looks like in today's paradigm.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+1. How have platform moderation policies failed to counter speech, and what enforcement models work?
+2. Should the State intervene to address the harms of hate speech?
+3. How can platform accountability coexist with free speech?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+This workshop will provide participants an opportunity to review three unique models of platform accountability practices. Key conclusions and learnings from the hosts with their unique experiences will be utilized to develop a working model of best practices for other jurisdictions to consider. Considering the impacts of the Brussels Effect and the Delhi Effect in exporting laws on platform regulation to neighboring jurisdictions, this workshop will provide timely insights into what goes right and wrong when it comes to appeals emanating from platform decisions. It will help address prominent issues, but also develop alternative pathways to addressing appeals through more robust measures. This will help in guiding stakeholders based in jurisdictions where such mandates are in a consideration stage. Post session outputs will be materialized through collaborative campaigns and follow-up events based on the developments across the world.
+
+## Format
+
+Classroom
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** The classroom format works best as we will in the beginning provide an overview of the three styles of appeals redressal and our experiences with the same.
+We will then be engaging in breakout groups with our participants. Each of the three models- GAC, DSA, and Oversight Board will hand over case studies to their respective groups, before allowing them to adjudicate the same.
+Lastly, we will form back into a class and discuss our learnings and come to a common consensus for what a better model of appeals can be.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** We will develop case studies to circulate both to online and offline participants so that both can engage with the workshop. The online moderator will ensure that online participants can ask questions to the speakers, as well as present their analysis of the case studies.
+If enough online participants join, we will facilitate break out rooms for them, with each group getting time to discuss the case study, make arguments, and adjudicate the same.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Nilay Shah, Software Freedom Law Center, India
+**Organizer 2:** Ritumbra Manuvie, University of Groningen
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Nilay Shah, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 2:** Ritumbra Manuvie, Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 3:** Nighat Dad, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 4:** Thomas Hughes, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Nilay Shah, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Angela Thomas, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Nilay Shah, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+16.3
+16.6
+17.8
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #249 Safeguarding Access to Reliable Information in the Age of AI
+
+## Description
+
+How do we make sure reliable information survives in an AI-driven world? AI systems pose unprecedented existential threats to the information ecosystem. They disrupt traditional business models, amplify and create disinformation, and affect public trust in the news. As AI advances faster than most frameworks can track, two urgent problems sit at its core.
+**The first is a media business question:** platforms and AI tools increasingly act as gatekeepers to news, impacting their visibility and diverting revenue away from them. With AI, journalistic content is being trained on and retrieved in AI generated summaries in most cases without consent and compensation. Are existing copyright frameworks fit for the AI age? Is a competition-law approach more appropriate than copyright? Should AI companies simply be taxed? And crucially, how do we design compensation that serves pluralism, rather than channeling resources only to a few big legacy players?
+**The second is epistemic and democratic:** AI-augmented disinformation is gaining traction online, eroding trust in news media and citizens' ability to tell fact from fiction with the highest stakes in elections and wartime.
+This session will build on the policy strategies and best practices identified over a year-long workstream of the Partnership for Information and Democracy (an intergovernmental agreement between 57 states worldwide) co-chaired by the governments of Ukraine, Luxembourg, and Spain.The workstream's final policy recommendations on both issues are ready, and the aim of this session is to stress-test them with an even wider public, gathering critique on their efficacy and representativeness across diverse regulatory contexts globally. Focusing especially on the Global South perspective, the workshop will recognize and speak to structural inequalities in technology, infrastructure, and language. The outcome of the workshop’s discussions will feed directly into the final policy report to be published in 2027.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+How do we ensure AI serves, rather than undermines access to reliable information?
+What policy and legal approaches to ensure media viability and visibility in the age of AI?
+How do we ensure representation and pluralism are embedded in AI governance frameworks with a diversity of topics, actors and viewpoints?
+What legal measures and safeguards can we implement to counter AI-facilitated information manipulation?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The discussions from this workshop will feed directly into the next draft of our final policy report to be published in February 2027. Participants will share how AI market and power dynamics are affecting public interest media in their own regions, helping us test our findings against a range of real-world contexts. They will also get an overview of where AI regulation against deepfakes and manipulation currently stands globally, and where the gaps remain. Speakers will include NGOs, academic experts, and government officials, to offer a mix of perspectives. We are particularly keen to hear from Global South stakeholders, whose experiences are often missing from these debates. The insights and feedback raised during the session will directly inform the next iteration of our recommendations.
+
+## Reference Document
+
+Reference Document
+
+## Format
+
+Classroom
+**Duration (minutes):** 60
+**Format description:** The classroom format is best suited for our activity as we hope to elicit maximum commentary from a large, diverse audience. Since we hope to have detailed discussions with maximum participation, we will require 60 minutes of time. This will include a 15-minute presentation by three speakers involved in the workstream, representing different regions (Europe, LATAM, South-East Asia) and backgrounds (government, civil society, and academia), covering the key challenges and, more specifically, the policy strategies identified to address them; a 40-minute Q&A with the audience, guided by the moderator through prompt questions and an online poll with multiple-choice and yes/no questions for online participants; and a 5-minute wrap-up summarizing the key points of discussion and next steps. Since we prioritise geographical and organizational diversity in our policy feedback, even if they are not necessarily copyright experts, walk-in participants are encouraged to contribute via questions and comments.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** Since we prioritise a classroom set-up with a moderator, we will open the floor to question-and-answer sessions to participants online, who can then engage in a live discussion with onsite participants.
+We recognise that onsite participants are uniquely advantaged, but we will share slides and any relevant materials at the beginning of the workshop.
+We plan to share questions in the chat online and share online polls which participants can contribute to. Complementary tools include Mentimeter and Wooclap for online polls.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Grenier Camille, Forum on Information and Democracy
+**Organizer 2:** Emma Gruden, Forum on Information and Democracy
+**Organizer 3:** Katharina Zuegel, Forum on Information and Democracy
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Lizete Nóbrega, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 2:** Merrin Muhammed Ashraf, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 3:** Luc Dockendorf, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Grenier Camille, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Katharina Zuegel, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Emma Gruden, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #277 Assessing and Shaping the UN Convention against Cybercrime
+
+## Description
+
+The UN Convention against Cybercrime (UNCC) establishes a global framework to guide national efforts and facilitate international cooperation to address cybercrime. The UNCC's broad scope for investigative measures means that its implementation may pose significant risks to human rights unless accompanied by strong safeguards in domestic legal systems. The use of cybercrime laws as a basis for enhancing surveillance and curtailing the rights to freedom of expression and other human rights is by now well-documented globally. At-risk groups, including human rights defenders, religious minorities, and journalists, are often targeted under these laws.
+The upcoming establishment of a Conference of States Parties and negotiations on an additional protocol to the UNCC could serve to introduce new safeguards, or to further expand the scope for and likelihood of abuse. Decisions to be made at the January 2027 meeting of the UNCC's Ad-hoc Committee will determine whether a broad set of civil society and industry stakeholders will be able to effectively engage in this process going forward.
+Ahead of that meeting, this session will bring together representatives from governments, companies, and civil society organizations to unpack what is at stake and consider how best to ensure that broad multistakeholder participation can help foster the trust and transparency necessary to allow for transnational cooperation against cybercrime, while averting transnational repression of human rights.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+What is the scope of reform to cybercrime laws that we should anticipate as the UNCC is ratified and transposed around the world?
+
+What will the negotiations regarding the UNCC’s “supplemental protocol” and “Conference of States Parties” focus on and what outcomes are possible and desirable?
+
+How can stakeholders work together to shape both transposition and ongoing negotiation in order to achieve the UNCC’s objectives while maximizing human rights protections?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+This session will be used to expand and inform existing networks of diverse stakeholders working in collaboration to help shape implementation of and further negotiations on the UNCC. GNI will develop and disseminate a summary of the session, and use the connections developed and strategies discussed to inform further coordination and engagement ahead of next year’s UNCC Ad-Hoc Committee negotiations.
+
+## Reference Document
+
+Reference Document
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 60
+**Format description:** We are hoping to attract a diverse range of participants with distinct expertise and levels of past engagement on the UNCC. We will use the first 30 minutes for initial speaker interventions to level-set and then the remaining 30 minutes for an open, roundtable discussion about next steps.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** GNI will share the agenda and speaker bios in the chat and via physical print-outs in order to make the most efficient use of time. GNI will provide both a physical and virtual moderator in order to help coordinate onsite and online participation. The second half (30 minutes) of the session will be dedicated to participant questions and interventions, with that equal time allotted for in person and virtual participation.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Jason  Pielemeier, 🔒Global Network Initiative
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Jessica Jahn, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 2:** Tim Engelhardt, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
+**Speaker 3:** Robyn Greene, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 4:** Grace Githaiga, Civil Society, African Group
+**Speaker 5:** Raman Jit Singh Chima, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Moderator
+
+Jason  Pielemeier, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Samaya Anjum, Technical Community, Intergovernmental Organization
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Jason  Pielemeier, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
+16.1
+16.10
+16.2
+16.3
+16.4
+16.5
+16.6
+16.7
+16.8
+16.a
+16.b
+17. Partnerships for the Goals
+17.13
+17.16
+17.3
+17.6
+17.7
+17.9
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #287 AI and security: safeguards in the age of facial recognition
+
+## Description
+
+The advance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been accompanied by a technosolutionist discourse that links complex problems to overly simplistic responses. In the field of security, this is reflected in the use of Facial Recognition (FR), which has been increasingly deployed in Latin America for purposes ranging from access to commercial buildings and stadiums to the identification of wanted individuals.
+
+In private security, the main concern lies in the indiscriminate use of facial biometrics. Individuals’ consent is not respected, creating data breach risks with serious consequences, since, unlike simple alphanumeric passwords, biometrics cannot be replaced or changed.
+
+In public security, the greatest risk is mass surveillance: people become continuously monitored, without transparency about how their data will be collected, stored, shared, or for how long it will be retained. In this context, socially vulnerable groups are the most affected, as AI systems tend to reproduce existing inequalities. This happens due to underrepresentative datasets and the historical biases embedded in the design and use of these technologies by those who develop them. As a result, these systems make more mistakes with vulnerable groups, generating false positives, abusive police stops, and wrongful arrests that deepen existing inequalities.
+
+This workshop aims to discuss the issue along three main axes: i) the current context of FR use in Latin America; ii) the effects on socially vulnerable groups; and iii) regulatory solutions in the fields of data protection and public security.
+
+It also establishes a direct link to SDG 10, as the workshop shows how the indiscriminate use of AI and FR can deepen existing inequalities and produce disproportionate impacts on socially vulnerable groups, reinforcing the need for measures that promote equity and non-discrimination.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+A. What are the main regulatory challenges that arise for public and private security in face of the use of artificial intelligence?
+B. What is the relation between the use of facial recognition in security and the protection of individuals' personal data?
+C. How might different social groups be impacted by the effects of AI use on security?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+It is intended to leverage the international and multistakeholder dialogue fostered by the workshop to discuss the effects of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Facial Recognition (FR) in security, in order to formulate possible strategies for policy advocacy, social mobilization, and regulatory action.
+
+Two of the participating organizations, IDEC and TEDIC, maintain active mobilization campaigns on the use of FR in Brazil and Paraguay: “Quem vê cara não vê permissão” and “Con mi cara no”. The workshop aims to use these campaigns as channels to disseminate the discussions held in the workshop, considering their broad and diverse reach and their ability to engage with different audiences and stakeholders. The workshop will seek to produce recommendations for public policymakers on the use of AI in private security. One highlight will be the participation of a speaker from Nairobi, who will comment on the issue from a local perspective.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** This session format is the best suited because it allows a round of questions to the speakers and a moment for exchange with both the in-person and remote audience, thus ensuring greater engagement and reflection.
+**The workshop will unfold as follows:** the in-person moderator will introduce the topic in 12 minutes, commenting on the main themes to be addressed and the objectives. She will pose one question to each of the speakers. Each speaker will have 9 minutes to answer. After that, there will be a 25-minute block for audience interaction, allowing in-person and remote attendees to ask questions and make comments. In the final 5 minutes, the rapporteur will preview the panel’s final output, presenting a set of 5 recommendations for public policymakers on the use of AI in private security, with a focus on the safeguards required for the adoption of facial recognition.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** To ensure a good hybrid experience, we will rely on the support of the online moderator, who will be responsible for facilitating communication between the online speakers and the in-person moderator. Throughout the workshop, in-person and online speakers will have equal speaking time, and during the second block, the audience will be encouraged to interact with all speakers.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Júlia Caldeira, Instituto de defesa de consumidores (idec)
+**Organizer 2:** Julia  Abad, Instituto de defesa de consumidores (idec)
+**Organizer 3:** Lauro Accioly, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** J. Carlos Lara, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 2:** Maricarmen Sequera, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 3:** Luiza Dutra, Private Sector, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 4:** Jorge Fontelles, Government, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 5:** Miriam Beartrice  Wanjiru, Civil Society, African Group
+
+## Moderator
+
+Julia  Abad, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Júlia Caldeira, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Lauro Accioly, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+10. Reduced Inequalities
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #290 Building a global AI accountability infrastructure
+
+## Description
+
+International human rights law already provides an important normative baseline for AI governance. Across the UN system, multiple human rights mechanisms and mandates have consistently affirmed that technologies incompatible with international human rights law should not be developed, deployed or used. Yet translating this normative consensus into effective accountability remains an unresolved challenge.
+This session explores how global AI governance can move from shared principles to operational accountability. Building upon the work already done by human rights mechanisms and the Scientific Panel’s report, it will focus on the institutions, evidence systems and coordination mechanisms required to identify harms, monitor compliance and enable accountability across borders.
+The discussion starts from a simple observation: AI production, deployment and impacts are transnational, while accountability remains fragmented. AI systems rely on global supply chains whose environmental, labour and human rights impacts are distributed across jurisdictions. Many harms first become visible through affected communities, while existing international governance processes often lack systematic ways to collect, validate and incorporate this evidence into decision-making.
+Building on existing international human rights standards and the momentum generated by the first UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance, participants from the AI Scientific Panel, governments, international organizations and civil society will discuss the institutional architecture needed to operationalize accountability. The workshop will examine practical building blocks - including independent evidence generation, pathways for documenting harms, coordination among international institutions, and mechanisms connecting local experiences to global governance processes - while identifying priorities for the intersessional period leading to the second Global Dialogue.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+A. What institutional mechanisms are needed to transform international AI governance principles into effective systems of accountability across borders?
+B. How can existing international human rights and multilateral mechanisms, including the UPR, treaty bodies, specialised UN agencies and the Scientific Panel on AI, be integrated into a coherent global AI accountability infrastructure?
+C. How can local evidence of AI harms be systematically incorporated into global AI governance processes?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The workshop will produce a set of recommendations on priority building blocks for a global AI accountability infrastructure, reflecting the multistakeholder dialogue held at the IGF. The recommendations will focus on operational measures capable of strengthening implementation of existing international human rights standards in AI governance.
+Positioned between the first and second UN Global Dialogues on AI Governance, the session treats the IGF as a key intersessional space to advance concrete proposals before negotiations resume in 2027. The recommendations will be shared with relevant UN processes and stakeholders involved in the Global Dialogue. Participants will leave with practical ideas on how existing international institutions can be connected into a coherent global accountability infrastructure.
+
+## Reference Document
+
+Reference Document
+
+## Format
+
+Classroom
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** A 90-minute classroom format provides sufficient time for a structured exchange among speakers representing different stakeholder groups and areas of expertise, followed by moderated discussion with participants. The session addresses a complex institutional challenge that cannot be meaningfully explored through short presentations alone.
+The classroom setting supports a focused policy dialogue while allowing participants to engage with speakers throughout the discussion, helping to test ideas, identify areas of convergence and explore different institutional approaches. The extended duration is particularly important given the breadth of mechanisms under discussion (from UN human rights bodies and specialised agencies to emerging AI governance institutions) and the opportunity to identify practical pathways for strengthening global AI accountability during the intersessional period before the second UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The session will be designed to ensure that onsite and online participants can engage on equal footing throughout the discussion. The moderator will actively alternate between questions and comments from the room and the online platform, while a designated online moderator will monitor the virtual discussion and relay interventions in real time.
+The discussion will include dedicated moments for questions and comments following each thematic segment, allowing participants to shape the conversation as it develops. This approach encourages dialogue across stakeholder groups and regions while ensuring that both onsite and remote participants can meaningfully contribute to identifying priorities for strengthening global AI accountability.
+No additional online platforms are planned beyond the hybrid participation tools provided by the IGF Secretariat.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Marina Meira, Derechos Digitales
+**Organizer 2:** Souza  Michel , OHCHR
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Paloma Lara-Castro, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 2:** Souza  Michel , Intergovernmental Organization, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 3:** Nighat Dad, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Moderator
+
+Nighat Dad, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Alithu  Bazan Talavera, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Marina Meira, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+5.c
+8.8
+9.1
+10.3
+10.5
+16.3
+16.6
+16.7
+16.b
+17.14
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #298 AI Chatbots as Election Information Gatekeepers
+
+## Description
+
+Generative AI is rapidly replacing traditional search engines and social feeds as a primary interface for citizens seeking political and electoral information globally. As chatbots become embedded in messaging apps, operating systems, and browsers, they act as powerful information gatekeepers—raising urgent international questions about neutrality, accuracy, algorithmic bias, and compliance with electoral laws.
+
+This session addresses how global governance frameworks, regulators, developers, and civil society can evaluate and oversee AI tools as information intermediaries during high-stakes elections. Grounded in a comparative perspective, the panel presents replicable, open-source auditing methodologies and qualitative inquiry frameworks designed to test chatbot behavior across electoral cycles.
+
+To ground the theoretical discussion, the session draws on empirical evidence from an ongoing multi-method study in Brazil (conducted by InternetLab, LabDados, and Recos). The Brazilian experience serves as a key case study analyzed as an example, highlighting two universal challenges: (1) User Behavior & Trust, examining how diverse sociodemographic groups query, interpret, and trust AI-generated political content; and (2) Model Auditing & Compliance, presenting automated, longitudinal stress-testing of frontier LLMs against electoral rules, such as prohibitions on ranking candidates, procedural hallucination, and the reproduction of gendered political violence.
+
+By contrasting these empirical findings with regulatory approaches and election management strategies from other regions, the session explores what scalable oversight, transparency, and developer accountability should look like worldwide. Rather than focusing on a single jurisdiction, the panel brings together researchers, AI developers, and digital rights advocates to discuss how cross-country auditing frameworks can safeguard electoral integrity without stifling freedom of expression.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+1. What obligations should generative AI providers have to prevent chatbots from recommending or ranking political candidates? 2. How can regulators and civil society build replicable, transparent, cross-country methodologies to audit generative AI responses to electoral queries over an election cycle? 3. What role should generative AI play as an information intermediary in elections, and how should oversight be balanced against freedom of expression?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+Participants will gain a comprehensive understanding of the structural challenges generative AI poses to electoral information ecosystems worldwide. They will leave with access to an adaptable, open-source auditing methodology and testing infrastructure—demonstrated through empirical data from Latin America—that can be replicated to evaluate AI models in their own national or regional election cycles. Furthermore, the session will establish a cross-regional network linking researchers, election authorities, civil society, and AI developers to co-create global standards for chatbot compliance, auditability, and political neutrality during elections.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** A roundtable format is best suited to this session because it enables a candid, interactive exchange among researchers, AI developers, digital rights advocates, election authorities, and participants. Rather than positioning the audience as passive listeners, the layout encourages them to contribute regional experiences, challenge assumptions, and help identify how the proposed auditing methodologies could be adapted across different electoral contexts.
+
+The 90-minute duration allows sufficient time to introduce the empirical case study and open-source methodology, examine each of the three policy questions in depth, and facilitate meaningful audience participation. It also provides space to compare regulatory and governance approaches across regions and conclude with concrete areas for collaboration. While the session could be adapted to a 60-minute slot if necessary, 90 minutes is preferable to preserve its comparative, participatory, and solution-oriented character.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The session will be structured so that onsite and online participants can join the discussion on equal terms. A dedicated online moderator will follow the chat, invite remote participants to speak, and bring their questions into the room throughout the session.
+The discussion will be divided into thematic blocks linked to the three policy questions. At the end of each block, the facilitator will reserve time for interventions from both the onsite and online audiences, rather than leaving all questions to the final minutes.
+Mentimeter will be available to everyone, whether they are in the room or joining remotely. We will use it for short polls, collecting questions, and gathering examples or concerns from different countries. This will give participants who may not wish to speak publicly another way to contribute and will help the moderators identify shared priorities and points of disagreement in real time.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Fernanda Campagnucci, InternetLab
+**Organizer 2:** Victor Pavarin Tavares, InternetLab
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Sarah Wesonga, Civil Society, African Group
+**Speaker 2:** Luiz Moncau, Private Sector, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 3:** Marina Meira, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Fernanda Campagnucci, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Victor Pavarin Tavares, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Fernanda Campagnucci, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #302 Democratic Resilience in the Age of AI
+
+## Description
+
+Generative AI is transforming how information is produced, distributed and trusted. While these technologies create new opportunities for participation and access to knowledge, they also enable disinformation, synthetic content, impersonation and increasingly personalised forms of manipulation. Democratic resilience can therefore no longer be treated only as a matter of fact-checking or individual media literacy. It is a shared governance challenge involving public institutions, technology platforms, education, research, media and civil society.
+
+This interactive workshop will examine how societies can move from reactive responses to AI-enabled disinformation towards a broader model of “civic immunity”. Civic immunity refers to the capacity of citizens, communities and institutions to recognise manipulation, respond critically, protect democratic participation and recover from information-related disruption.
+
+Speakers from Lithuania, Georgia and North Macedonia will bring perspectives from education, applied research, civil society and community-based democratic initiatives. Particular attention will be given to countries and communities experiencing political polarisation, foreign information manipulation, institutional distrust and unequal access to digital and AI literacy.
+
+The session will explore where responsibility should lie, which actors are currently missing from decision-making, and how democratic resilience measures can be strengthened without restricting freedom of expression or excluding vulnerable groups. Participants onsite and online will be invited to compare national experiences, identify gaps in current responses and assess practical approaches involving AI literacy, digital citizenship, community education and cross-sector cooperation.
+
+The workshop will conclude by jointly identifying principles and practical actions for strengthening civic immunity in AI-mediated information environments. These findings will contribute to a short post-session Civic Immunity Brief for educators, civil society organisations, researchers and policymakers.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+1. How should responsibility for democratic resilience against AI-enabled disinformation be shared among governments, technology platforms, educators, researchers, media and civil society?
+
+2. Which governance, education and community-based measures can strengthen civic immunity while safeguarding freedom of expression and other digital rights?
+
+3. How can vulnerable, marginalised and underrepresented communities participate meaningfully in designing responses to AI-enabled manipulation and threats to information integrity?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+Participants will gain a clearer understanding of how AI-enabled disinformation affects democratic participation, institutional trust and different social groups across diverse European contexts. The discussion will identify where responsibility currently falls between governments, platforms, education systems, researchers, media and civil society, and where important governance gaps remain.
+
+The session will produce:
+
+1. A shared set of principles for strengthening civic immunity in AI-mediated information environments;
+2. Practical recommendations for integrating AI literacy, digital citizenship and community resilience into policy and capacity-building initiatives;
+3. Examples of transferable approaches from Lithuania, Georgia and North Macedonia;
+4. A short post-session Civic Immunity Brief summarising key insights, areas of disagreement and proposed actions.
+
+The outcomes will inform follow-up dialogue among participating organisations and support future educational, civic and policy initiatives addressing AI-enabled disinformation and democratic resilience.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 60
+**Format description:** A 60-minute interactive workshop with a round-table layout will support dialogue rather than a sequence of formal presentations. The format will allow speakers to introduce contrasting experiences briefly while reserving substantial time for contributions from onsite and online participants.
+
+The session will begin with short framing interventions from the speakers, followed by moderated discussion around the three policy questions. Participants will then work collectively to identify responsibilities, governance gaps and practical measures for strengthening civic immunity. A final prioritisation exercise will generate the key principles and recommendations included in the post-session brief.
+
+The layout will enable participants to see and respond directly to one another, while the 60-minute duration will provide sufficient time for diverse views without requiring an excessive number of speakers. The format is designed to give equal importance to expert knowledge, community experience and participant-generated insights.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The onsite and online moderators will work as a coordinated team. The onsite moderator will facilitate the room discussion, while the online moderator will welcome virtual participants, monitor the chat, collect questions and ensure that online contributions are integrated throughout the session.
+
+Speakers will provide brief opening interventions to maximise interaction. Questions will alternate between onsite and online participants. A shared digital tool, such as Slido, Mentimeter or Padlet, will enable all participants to respond to common prompts, identify governance gaps and prioritise proposed actions.
+
+The session will include an opening poll on responsibility for AI-enabled disinformation and a final prioritisation of civic immunity measures. Online contributions will be displayed or read aloud in the room. The rapporteur will record areas of agreement and contrasting perspectives. Session materials and the post-session brief will be shared digitally.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Morten Flate  Paulsen,  Nordic open online Academy
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Celiesiene Egle, Private Sector, Eastern European Group
+**Speaker 2:** Deralla Xhabir , Civil Society, Eastern European Group
+**Speaker 3:** Casale Roger , Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 4:** Ressmann Wolfgang , Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 5:** Skučaitė Gabija , Private Sector, Eastern European Group
+
+## Moderator
+
+Celiesiene Egle, Private Sector, Eastern European Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Celiesiene Egle, Private Sector, Eastern European Group
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Celiesiene Egle, Private Sector, Eastern European Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+4.7
+10.2
+16.10
+16.6
+16.7
+16.a
+17.16
+17.7
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #354 Who Governs AI? Shared Responsibility for Trust & Safety
+
+## Description
+
+Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming how online platforms identify, assess, and respond to harmful content. While AI promises faster detection and greater scale, many online harms, including technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), AI-generated intimate image abuse, coordinated harassment, and gendered disinformation, continue to require contextual understanding, local expertise, and human judgment.
+Drawing on insights from Digital Rights Foundation's Digital Security Helpline and the Feminist Helplines Research Initiative - a collaborative research initiative involving fourteen feminist helplines across the Global South - this workshop explores how civil society is already contributing to platform governance through survivor support, trusted reporting, evidence generation, policy engagement, and accountability mechanisms.
+Rather than debating whether AI should replace human moderators, the session asks a broader governance question: How can AI systems, trust and safety teams, civil society, governments, researchers, and users share responsibility for creating safer online environments?
+Through an interactive governance design exercise based on real-world anonymized cases, participants will examine how online harms move through today's trust and safety ecosystem, identify where existing systems succeed and fail, and collaboratively redesign governance processes that better integrate automated systems with human expertise.
+Bringing together representatives from technology companies, civil society organizations, researchers, and policymakers, the workshop will focus on practical governance solutions rather than abstract principles, identifying concrete ways to strengthen accountability, transparency, and collaboration in AI-enabled trust and safety systems.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+A. How should responsibilities for preventing, identifying, responding to, and learning from AI-enabled online harms be shared between technology companies, governments, civil society, researchers, and users?
+
+B. How can frontline evidence generated by trusted reporting mechanisms, digital support services, and civil society organizations be integrated into the design, evaluation, and governance of AI-assisted trust and safety systems?
+
+C. What governance mechanisms are needed to ensure that increasing reliance on AI strengthens—rather than weakens—human rights, transparency, accountability, and meaningful human oversight within platform trust and safety systems?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+Participants will co-create a ‘Shared Responsibility Framework for AI-enabled Trust & Safety’, mapping governance responsibilities across different actors and stages of the online harm lifecycle. The session will generate practical recommendations on integrating AI with human expertise, strengthening collaboration between platforms and civil society, and improving accountability within trust and safety systems.
+The resulting framework and key recommendations will be compiled into a publicly available session summary for dissemination through participating organizations, contributing to ongoing multistakeholder discussions on AI governance, platform accountability, and online safety.
+
+## Format
+
+Classroom
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** The session is designed around collaborative problem-solving rather than presentations.
+Short opening interventions will establish common context before participants work together in small, multistakeholder groups using real-world governance scenarios. This format encourages active participation from all stakeholder groups while producing tangible outputs that can inform future policy discussions.
+A 90-minute workshop provides sufficient time for participants to engage meaningfully with the scenarios, develop governance recommendations, compare perspectives across stakeholder groups, and collectively identify areas of consensus and disagreement.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** Online participants will participate in exactly the same exercises as onsite attendees. Using Mentimeter (or Slido), participants will first respond to live polling questions on responsibility for AI-enabled harms, establishing a baseline for discussion. Both onsite and online breakout groups will work simultaneously using shared digital collaboration boards (e.g., Miro) containing the Trust & Safety Journey Map and Shared Responsibility Matrix. Online facilitators will ensure virtual participants can contribute equally to group discussions. The final Shared Responsibility Framework will be compiled live using inputs from both onsite and online groups, ensuring that recommendations reflect the perspectives of all participants regardless of location.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Nighat Dad, 🔒Digital Rights Foundation
+**Organizer 2:** Maria Nazar, Digital Rights Foundation
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Nighat Dad, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 2:** Alexandria Walden, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 3:** Mohamad Najem, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Moderator
+
+Maria Nazar, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Hyra Basit, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Hyra Basit, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+10. Reduced Inequalities
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #398 Governance Challenges of Generative AI as a Web Search Layer
+
+## Description
+
+"Web search is undergoing a structural change. Traditional search engines rank links and let users decide what to read. AI-powered search systems now decompose questions into sub-queries, select results, and return a synthesized answer. This mechanism, known as query fan-out, is becoming central to AI-powered search.
+
+While this approach can improve search, it creates an invisible layer of algorithmic decision-making that is difficult to scrutinize. Users cannot see which sub-queries were generated, which assumptions guided them, which sources were considered, how they were ranked, or why certain perspectives were excluded.
+
+Search providers no longer only organize information: they increasingly shape the questions asked, and the narratives users receive.
+
+This transition raises governance concerns around transparency, accountability, provenance, source attribution, informational diversity, and security.
+
+From an economic perspective, publishers report declining referral traffic as synthesized answers replace visits, while licensing agreements favour major players. Smaller and non-English outlets risk exclusion from the value chain, while paywalls and blocked crawlers may fragment the open Web.
+
+From a social and ethical perspective, research indicates that fan-out retrieval can favour English-language sources even when a question is asked in another language and concerns a local topic. Users may receive answers assembled from foreign coverage rather than local sources. For smaller publishers, minority-language communities, and the Global South, this means not only lost traffic but reduced presence in the evidence base about themselves.
+
+These systems are also vulnerable to indirect prompt injection, where malicious instructions embedded in Web content manipulate retrieval, generated answers, or subsequent agentic actions.
+
+The workshop will convene stakeholders to define feasible transparency and auditability requirements for AI-powered search. Onsite and online participants will produce a document identifying what systems should disclose, what should be technically measurable, and which gaps require further research, standards, and best-practice development."
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+1. Query fan-out determines what information AI search systems retrieve and synthesize. What minimum disclosures would make this retrieval layer auditable by researchers and regulators without requiring companies to expose legitimate trade secrets?
+
+2. Query fan-out can reduce referral traffic to publishers. How can technical standards and public policy create a fairer exchange of value between AI platforms and the content producers they depend on, without pushing the Web toward paywalls and fragmentation?
+
+3. How should retrieval across languages be measured? What benchmarks are needed to ensure linguistic and epistemic diversity when query fan-out disproportionately retrieves English-language and non-local sources?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The session will produce a working document based on the discussion from onsite and online participants. It will cover three topics: what AI search providers could disclose about the retrieval layer without exposing proprietary systems, how independent researchers could measure retrieval quality across languages, and which of these questions need technical standards.
+
+The document will be written for three audiences. It shows the technical community where current Web standards for provenance and attribution stop working once answers are synthesized. It helps policymakers separate what is technically feasible today from what still needs research. And it gives publishers and language communities a common vocabulary for dealing with platforms that do not explain how sources are chosen.
+
+We will share the outcome with standards bodies and with national and regional IGF initiatives, and use it to continue the work between IGF cycles, so the discussion does not start from zero every year.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 60
+**Format description:** A roundtable format is particularly well suited to this session because the governance challenges raised by query fan-out require dialogue across different stakeholder groups, including technical experts, policymakers, civil society, researchers, content producers, and AI companies. Rather than relying on a sequence of formal presentations, the roundtable layout encourages direct exchange, comparison of perspectives, and collective exploration of possible policy and technical responses.
+
+The 60-minute duration allows for a concise introduction to the topic, short interventions from the invited participants, and a substantial moderated discussion involving both speakers and attendees.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The session will be divided into three parts: brief opening remarks, a moderated discussion based on the policy questions, and audience interaction. Each speaker will have up to five minutes to present their perspective, followed by a discussion in which onsite and online speakers will be invited to respond directly to one another.
+
+Audience participation will be integrated throughout the session. The online moderator will monitor the virtual platform and collect questions and comments from remote participants, while the onsite moderator will facilitate contributions from the room. Both moderators will coordinate to alternate online and onsite interventions and ensure balanced participation.
+
+The platform’s chat and Q&A features will be used to gather remote contributions. A coordination meeting will also be held with all speakers and moderators before the IGF to align roles, timing, and hybrid participation procedures.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Diogo Cortiz da Silva, 🔒Brazilian Network Information Center - NIC.br
+**Organizer 2:** Mbogho Audrey, USIU-Africa
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Santana Vagner, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 2:** Mbogho Audrey, Civil Society, African Group
+**Speaker 3:** Grace Githaiga, Civil Society, African Group
+**Speaker 4:** Varshney Kush , Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 5:** Diogo Cortiz da Silva, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Diogo Cortiz da Silva, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Reinaldo Ferraz, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Selma Morais, Private Sector, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
+10. Reduced Inequalities
+17. Partnerships for the Goals
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #416 Survival of the Convenient: Model Selection and Tracing Harm
+
+## Description
+
+AI models spread because they’re well adapted to their environment: procurement rules, incentive to publish, and token budgets. Meanwhile, better models sometimes vanish because companies deem them computationally expensive, or hard to train. Therefore, the fitness landscape is often determined by those who hold the power. Developers, scientific journals, investors, governments, and the affected populations do not share that power equally.
+
+Not until something goes wrong does it become apparent that an AI model has failed. Chatbots endlessly offering evasive answers. Minorities getting credit refused. Medical attention diverted to another patient.
+Yet, these AI-assisted decisions are challenging to counteract. People sometimes do not know an AI model was involved, and if they suspect so, they lack the data, the expertise and the counsel to prove a pattern.
+
+**This roundtable explores three questions:** what is the threshold to deploy a model; who is told when issues emerge; and what record must accompany a model so that failures can be detected and corrected.
+
+The roundtable brings two juxtaposing positions into debate. Technical experts argue that there is no perfect risk-benefit balance. Peer-review certifies model use based only on how it was applied to the original dataset. It does not certify the model itself. Policy experts argue that acknowledging model limitations is insufficient unless there is accountability. There must be mechanisms for scrutinizing decisions, and detecting when models go astray.
+
+Short interventions open the session. Most of the time is working time. Participants will be presented with three cases: a public-service chatbot that does not escalate to a human, an unexplained credit refusal, and a clinical risk score that redirects care.
+
+Working from these cases, participants draft the minimum record that should travel with a deployed model, corrected live and published as the session's output.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+(1) What evidence should be required before an AI model is deployed in a setting where it affects access to public services, credit or care, and who should set that threshold?
+
+(2) When a deployed model is found to be failing, who should be informed, by whom, and on what timescale — the affected individual, the deploying institution, the regulator, or the public?
+
+(3) What record should accompany a consequential AI model into deployment so that failures can be detected and corrected, and who should be able to obtain it?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The session will produce a short, plain-language statement of the minimum record that should accompany a consequential AI model into deployment: data provenance, the population the model was validated on, justification of the performance measure, version history, decision logs, escalation pathways to a human, and drift monitoring. Participants draft it during the working segment; it is corrected aloud in the room, circulated to registrants within two weeks, published as the session report, and offered to ongoing IGF and WSIS+20 follow-up work on AI accountability.
+
+Participants will take away an account of why weaker models often displace better ones, from people who build and deploy them; a clear understanding of what peer review does and does not certify; and a concrete sense of what someone affected by an automated decision would need in order to establish a pattern and contest it.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 60
+**Format description:** Roundtable. Most of the session is participant working time rather than presentation. A roundtable lets mixed groups form and re-form without rearranging the room mid-session, and seats speakers among participants rather than facing them, which matters when the output is drafted collectively rather than delivered. Classroom and theatre layouts impose a presenter-and-audience geometry that would work against the format.
+
+Sixty minutes is chosen deliberately. Interventions are capped at four minutes, which obliges speakers to state a position rather than deliver a paper, and leaves roughly half the session for participants to work the three cases and report back. The tight clock is what keeps the format honest: with less time to fill, the discussion has to reach the evidentiary question instead of circling the framing. The roundtable layout supports this by removing the cost of moving people into and out of groups.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** Interaction is structural rather than additive, and a short session makes that more important: when time runs out, remote participants are usually what gets cut. The design removes that discretion.
+
+The online speaker opens the session, so remote participation frames it rather than trailing it. She then facilitates the online group, which works its assigned case in parallel with the onsite tables, giving remote participants an expert working alongside them rather than a side channel. Report-backs run online first, before any onsite table speaks. A dedicated online moderator, who is not a speaker, holds a standing right to interrupt.
+
+Both rooms are given the same task and write into the same document, so no contribution is separable by location.
+
+**Tools:** one Mentimeter poll at the open, displayed in-room and on-screen; a shared collaborative document for capture; the IGF-provided video channel and captioning.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Deliz-Aguirre Rafael, Weizmann institute of Science – Fulbright Program
+**Organizer 2:** Raashi Saxena, 🔒 Accessibility Lab
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Deliz-Aguirre Rafael, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 2:** Melanie Nuesch Germano, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 3:** Raashi Saxena, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 4:** Effoduh Jake, Civil Society, African Group
+
+## Moderator
+
+Raashi Saxena, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Melanie Nuesch Germano, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Deliz-Aguirre Rafael, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+3.8
+8.10
+10.3
+16.10
+16.6
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #440 AI Slopaganda & Algorithmic Disinformation in Africa
+
+## Description
+
+Across Sub-Saharan Africa, digital public spheres face unprecedented erosion from low-cost Generative AI tools and platform profit models that prioritize engagement over truth. This session examines the rapid rise of "AI slopaganda"—low-quality synthetic media, automated bot networks, and commercialized disinformation-for-hire—and its compounding threat to civic participation, climate advocacy, and electoral integrity.
+
+Co-hosted by Magamba Network and Baraza Media Lab, this interactive workshop brings together grassroots media practitioners, digital creators, policy advocates, and tech experts to dissect how algorithmic design amplifies synthetic manipulation in non-Western markets. Moving beyond traditional, reactive fact-checking, the session highlights African-led countermeasures, including open-source forensic toolkits, community verification hubs, plain-language counter-narratives (such as NAFASI’s News Factory and Ukweli framework), and sovereign civic infrastructure.
+
+Through real-world case studies from East, Southern, and West Africa, participants will engage in a collaborative dialogue on holding global tech platforms accountable for local language content moderation blind spots. The workshop offers practical approaches for civil society actors to defend information integrity, protect vulnerable activists from automated online harassment, and demand transparent, equitable algorithmic governance in the Age of Intelligence.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+A. How can regulatory and multistakeholder governance frameworks compel global tech platforms to mitigate the algorithmic amplification of synthetic content ("AI slopaganda") in Global South contexts?
+B. What sovereign forensic methodologies and plain-language counter-narrative strategies can civil society employ to protect democratic spaces from low-cost AI manipulation?
+C. How can cross-regional partnerships between media labs and civil society bridge content moderation blind spots in local languages?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+1. Capacity & Toolkits: Participants will acquire practical, open-source frameworks for detecting AI synthetic media, tracking bot networks, and deploying plain-language verification toolkits adapted for grassroots movements.
+2. Policy Deliverable: Publication of a joint policy briefing detailing concrete multistakeholder recommendations on platform accountability, local language moderation, and algorithmic transparency to be submitted to regional bodies and tech companies.
+3. Transnational Synergy: Formalized cross-border collaboration between civic tech hubs, media labs, and international digital rights advocates to share real-time threat intelligence and cross-verify viral disinformation during critical democratic moments.
+
+## Reference Document
+
+Reference Document
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 60
+**Format description:** The 60-minute roundtable format breaks down hierarchies between panelists and attendees. Because AI manipulation and algorithmic design evolve rapidly, a brief framing segment followed by structured interactive breakout discussions allows onsite and virtual delegates to share regional perspectives, analyze case studies, test verification methodologies, and collaboratively draft platform accountability demands.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** To guarantee equal engagement, the session employs an Onsite Moderator and a dedicated Online Moderator working in tandem. Online participants will interact via a unified Q&A queue (Slido) for live polling and question upvoting. The Online Moderator will actively bridge virtual interventions into the physical room during dedicated floor discussions. Shared digital whiteboards (Miro) will allow online and onsite participants to jointly map AI disinformation vectors and counter-strategies in real time.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Muhammed Bello  Buhari , Magamba Network
+**Organizer 2:** Samm Farai Monro, Magamba Network
+**Organizer 3:** Kudzayi Zvinavashe, Magamba Network
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Muhammed Bello  Buhari , Civil Society, African Group
+**Speaker 2:** Samm Farai Monro, Civil Society, African Group
+**Speaker 3:** Vincy Mighulo Masaka, Civil Society, African Group
+**Speaker 4:** Laila Lorenzon, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Muhammed Bello  Buhari , Civil Society, African Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Kudzayi Zvinavashe, Civil Society, African Group
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Kudzayi Zvinavashe, Civil Society, African Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
+9.c
+10. Reduced Inequalities
+10.2
+10.3
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
+16.7
+16.a
+17. Partnerships for the Goals
+17.16
+17.17
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #452 Voting Advice by AI? How to Protect Information Integrity
+
+## Description
+
+Generative AI is rapidly becoming a new intermediary for political information. Increasingly, citizens ask AI chatbots to explain party platforms, compare candidates, evaluate campaign promises, or even recommend how they should vote. Unlike search engines, large language models (LLMs) therefore no longer merely retrieve political information – they interpret it, prioritize it, and increasingly provide personalized voting advice. This development creates new opportunities for democratic participation while raising fundamental questions about information integrity, political pluralism, and electoral integrity.
+
+This workshop is designed to move from evidence to action. It begins with a discussion of the latest evidence on the provision of political information and voting advice by LLM-based chatbots – and public opinion on their use. Speakers will share original findings from a new 15-country public opinion survey on AI-generated voting advice (REMIT research project), alongside reports of chatbot use and regulation during recent elections in Brazil, Morocco and Nepal. These illustrate how AI-generated political advice is shaping democratic processes across different regulatory and political contexts. Building on this evidence, the discussion shifts toward governance. Representatives from different stakeholder groups will discuss what concrete safeguards are needed to ensure that AI-generated political advice supports democratic participation while protecting information integrity and political pluralism. They will also debate how human rights obligations and platform responsibilities can be viewed in the context of future multistakeholder governance of AI-generated political information and voting advice.
+
+The workshop builds on the intersessional work of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility and the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles. It builds on the findings of previous IGF workshops, including “AI and Disinformation: Safeguarding Elections” #255, IGF 2024, and will be the next step toward a report published in 2027 as part of intersessional activities.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+1. What does current evidence tell us about the accuracy, neutrality, transparency, and political pluralism of voting advice generated by AI chatbots, and how are these perceived by users?
+2. What responsibilities should AI providers, governments, election authorities, technical community and international organizations assume to ensure that AI-generated voting advice supports democratic participation and information integrity?
+3. Which governance measures should be implemented at the platform, national, and international levels to ensure that AI-generated political advice is transparent, pluralistic, and consistent with democratic values and human rights?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The workshop will directly contribute to a joint 2027 report of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility and the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles. This effort is open to all participants, both online and attending in person.The report will bring together evidence on current chatbot impact on political information and elections, and users' perceptions of AI-generated voting advice. Drawing on diverse regional and stakeholder perspectives, participants will develop tailored recommendations for policymakers, election authorities, AI developers, platforms, researchers, and civil society organizations. The report will be presented and discussed across National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) and at IGF 2027, helping to inform future policy debates and governance approaches for AI-generated political information.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 60
+**Format description:** A 60-minute roundtable is well suited to the workshop's objective of moving from evidence to action. To maximize interaction, the session begins with an innovative 15-minute PechaKucha-style presentation (limited speaking time, enforced through automatically shifting and limited slides)  in which speakers concisely present the latest evidence on AI-generated voting advice, public opinion about this, and regulatory experiences from different regions. This creates a shared evidence base while leaving sufficient time for moderated discussion among representatives from governments, the private sector, civil society, academia, and the technical community. The physical format (roundtable) encourages equal participation and collaborative problem-solving, while also engaging remote participants.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The workshop is designed as a genuinely hybrid discussion rather than a sequence of presentations. A moderator will actively alternate between onsite and online speakers and participants, ensuring balanced participation throughout the session. Following the opening PechaKucha presentations, both onsite and remote participants will contribute equally during moderated discussion and stakeholder-specific recommendation building. Live polls (in-person and remote participants through online tool Mentimeter) will feature the same questions as those to which public opinion data presented thus making the evidence section of the workshop more engaging. Participants will also be able to submit questions through the and chat, with a dedicated online moderator ensuring that remote interventions receive equal attention.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Yasmin Curzi de Mendonça, UVA Karsh Institute of Democracy
+**Organizer 2:** Dennis Redeker, University of Bremen
+**Organizer 3:** Santosh Babu Sigdel, 🔒Digital Rights Nepal
+**Organizer 4:** Adio Dinika, University of Bremen
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Yasmin Curzi de Mendonça, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 2:** Ana  Ruelas, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
+**Speaker 3:** Adio Dinika, Technical Community, African Group
+**Speaker 4:** Ojo Edetaen, Civil Society, African Group
+
+## Moderator
+
+Adio Dinika, Technical Community, African Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Dennis Redeker, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Santosh Babu Sigdel, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
+16.10
+16.7
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #52 AI in Security: Engaging Meaningfully Industry and Investors
+
+## Description
+
+The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) in security and defense is reshaping national and global security landscapes, yet governance frameworks remain fragmented. While AI ethics and governance in civilian contexts has gained momentum, reflected in the Global Dialogue on AI Governance and the Preliminary Report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, the security domain lags behind, with limited multilateral, regional, and national engagement on responsible AI development and deployment in this space.
+
+Calls to move from principles into practice are growing, alongside recognition of the private sector's and investors' critical role in implementation and operationalization. Under the IGF 2026 sub-theme of Trust and Governance in the Age of Intelligence, this session has three objectives: (1) to assess what civilian AI governance can teach the security domain about structuring industry and investor engagement; (2) to surface emerging norms, policies, and legal frameworks for mitigating risk and ensuring accountability; and (3) to generate concrete recommendations for aligning AI development with global security norms while preventing misuse and enhancing international cooperation.
+
+Organized by the Roundtable for AI, Security, and Ethics (RAISE), a UNIDIR-led initiative convening AI developers, academics, civil society, international organizations, and policymakers across geopolitical divides, the session brings together OHCHR, the Kenyan Ministry of Defense, Microsoft, the Brazilian Presidency, and Privacy International.
+
+Outcomes will feed directly into the Fourth REAIM Summit (Kenya, April 2027) and the development of the Framework of Responsible Industry Behaviour for AI in the Military Domain, led by UNIDIR in partnership with OHCHR. This will ensure this workshop's insights concretely shape near-term multilateral and contributes to stability rather than exacerbating risks and inequalities.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+•	What is the role and impact of the private sector and investors in governing AI in security, and how can this be leveraged to align development with global security norms, prevent misuse and enhance international cooperation?
+•	Where does responsibility sit across the value chain, from developers to State procurers to end-users? How can the Framework of Responsible Industry Behaviour clarify this?
+•	What would responsible AI procurement for security and defence look like in practice, in terms of due diligence and transparency?
+•	How can private-sector engagement strengthen multilateral governance and overcome fragmentation from company-specific or bilateral arrangements?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+•	Heightened awareness of the private sector's and investors' role in operationalizing responsible AI governance in security and defence, and of the risks of leaving this engagement unstructured.
+•	Actionable policy recommendations for governments, international organizations, investors, and industry on what meaningful, accountable engagement should look like, including practical guidance on responsible procurement.
+•	Stronger multistakeholder collaboration through RAISE, deepening dialogue between policymakers, industry, investors, academia, and civil society on norms, standards, and accountability mechanisms for AI in security.
+•	A session output feeding directly into the Framework of Responsible Industry Behaviour for AI in the Military Domain (UNIDIR/OHCHR) and the Fourth REAIM Summit (Kenya, April 2027).
+
+## Reference Document
+
+Reference Document
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** We are organizing this session as a roundtable to draw fully on both panelists' and attendees' expertise, and to structure active participation throughout. UNIDIR and OHCHR bring a strong track record of moderating interactive, dynamic panel discussions that engage speakers and audience alike; OHCHR's B-Tech Project will additionally support private sector buy-in.
+
+We have deliberately requested a 90-minute format to maximize discussion time among panelists and with participants more broadly. To ensure balanced online/offline participation, onsite and online moderators will coordinate closely, alternating questions between in-person and remote participants.
+
+The moderator will play an active role, steering discussion toward specific themes to surface the incentives, conditions, and success factors for meaningful and impactful engagement of the private sector and investors in the sensitive, yet highly consequential, domain of AI and international peace and security.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The workshop will consist of a dynamic, moderated discussion among participants and speakers, with onsite and online moderators coordinating to alternate between in-person and remote participants.
+
+To support this, organizers will circulate key guiding questions in advance as part of dissemination material, ensuring all participants arrive equally prepared for meaningful exchange.
+
+Moderators will also use Pol.is, a web-based deliberation platform enabling direct engagement between in-room and online participants, a pioneering approach designed to close the gap between virtual and in-person contribution. Combined with polling tools such as Slido, participants will not only contribute to these collective intelligence activities but also react to and help consolidate emerging insights.
+
+These insights, drawn equally from online and in-person participants, will feed directly into the session's outcomes and outputs, including the post-session report, and input toward the upcoming REAIM Summit and the Framework of Responsible Industry Behaviour for AI in the Military Domain.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Yasmin Afina, UN Institute for Disarmament Research
+**Organizer 2:** Isabel Ebert, United Nations Human Rights
+**Organizer 3:** Jamal Hassan, Ministry of Defence, Kenya
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Jamal Hassan, Government, African Group
+**Speaker 2:** João Brant, Government, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 3:** Ilia Siatitsa, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 4:** Michael Karimian, Private Sector, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 5:** Yasmin Afina, Intergovernmental Organization, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 6:** Isabel Ebert, Intergovernmental Organization, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Yasmin Afina, Intergovernmental Organization, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Isabel Ebert, Intergovernmental Organization, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Yasmin Afina, Intergovernmental Organization, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+9.5
+9.b
+16.7
+16.8
+16.a
+17.17
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #76 Protecting trust, securing AI and emerging technologies
+
+## Description
+
+Artificial intelligence and emerging technologies are reshaping economies, societies, and critical infrastructure at unprecedented speed. While these technologies offer significant opportunities to strengthen cybersecurity, improve resilience, and support innovation, they also introduce new security challenges that policymakers, businesses, and other stakeholders must address. Emerging risks include AI-enabled vulnerability discovery, sophisticated cyberattacks, deepfakes, fraud, disinformation, and the growing complexity of interconnected digital ecosystems. At the same time, AI is increasingly being used to enhance cyber defence through improved threat detection, monitoring, analysis, and response capabilities.
+This workshop will bring together representatives from government, industry and civil society, to examine how security can be integrated into policies that support the responsible adoption and deployment of AI and other emerging technologies. Rather than treating security as a separate consideration, the discussion will examine how governments and industry can promote innovation while embedding security across the AI lifecycle—from development and deployment to operation and governance. Participants will explore practical policy approaches, including secure-by-design principles, risk management, governance frameworks, transparency measures, and resilience of AI supply chains.
+Drawing on practical experiences and cross-sector perspectives, participants will discuss how governments and industry can work together to enable the adoption of AI in ways that strengthen economic growth, resilience, and public trust while effectively managing security risks. The workshop will highlight the importance of holistic policy frameworks that bring together innovation, cybersecurity, governance, and international cooperation, as well as the role of public-private collaboration in supporting secure and trusted AI ecosystems.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+1.	How can policymakers  support the adoption of AI and emerging technologies while ensuring that security is integrated throughout the policy, development, and deployment lifecycle?
+2.	What policy, governance, and technical measures can help organizations adopt AI securely while strengthening cyber resilience and maintaining public trust?
+3.	How can stakeholders work together to promote holistic and interoperable policy approaches  to the security of AI and emerging technology ecosystems, including data, models, and supply chains?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The session will identify practical approaches for strengthening the security and resilience of AI and emerging technologies through multistakeholder cooperation. Participants will exchange experiences on addressing AI-enabled threats, leveraging AI for cybersecurity, and implementing secure-by-design practices across the technology lifecycle. The discussion will help inform future policy and industry discussions on AI governance, cybersecurity, and digital trust. Participants will gain insights into emerging risks, effective governance approaches, public-private collaboration models, and practical measures that can support secure innovation while enhancing confidence in the deployment and use of AI and emerging technologies.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 60
+**Format description:** A Round Table format is best-placed for the type of cross-sector, collaborative session that we envisage. It will be optimal for establishing an atmosphere that ensures both participants and panellists can engage in fruitful discussion, and that they can do so on equal footing through a seating arrangement conducive to multi-person dialogue. To allow time for in-depth discussion and also accommodate a constructive Q&A section to address the questions, feedback and thoughts of the audience, 60 minutes is the most suitable timeframe for the session.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** o	Prior to the session: to ensure speakers and attendees get the most out of the session, organizers will make use of the session’s page on the IGF website and social media channels to share preparatory material and kick-start a dialogue. A preparation call will be organised for all speakers, moderators and co-organisers so that everyone has the chance to meet and prepare for the session.
+o	During the session: the moderators are experienced in animating multistakeholder discussions and will complement each other in merging onsite and online speakers and attendees to the optimum. Onsite participants will be encouraged to connect to the online platform to stay informed and engage with discussions in the chat.
+o	Following the session: moderators will encourage participants to make use of the IGF website and social media channels to share further comments and contribute to the session’s report.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Suto Timea, International Chamber of Commerce
+**Organizer 2:** Chelsea ONYANGO, International Chamber of Commerce
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Carl Gahnberg, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 2:** Chadha Ashutosh, Private Sector, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 3:** Joyce Hakmeh, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 4:** Julia Rodriguez, Government, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 5:** Natasha Jackson, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 6:** Suto Timea, Private Sector, Eastern European Group
+
+## Moderator
+
+Timea Suto, Private Sector, Eastern European Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Chelsea ONYANGO, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Maria Clara Franca, Private Sector, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
+17. Partnerships for the Goals