The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> JUDITH ESPINOZA: Okay. Are we all mic'd and ready? Okay. Fantastic. Well, first of all, I want to thank everyone for coming. Your guests colleagues, esteemed guests. Sorry. We're having some technical difficulties. One second. Yeah? Good? Great. Okay. So welcome again. Thank you so much. We know it's the last day of the Internet Governance Forum. My name is Judith Espinoza working on emerging tech and frontier tech and the future enter net. What we're going to do is focus on some of the work we do at forum. To her right, we have Brittan Heller. She's the professor at Stanford law school. Welcome. We have robin Green, the Director of privacy and last but certainly not least, Apostolos Papadopoulos. A lot of the work we do at the forum initially started as part of the defining initiative of which every single person on this panel which I am grateful to have was part of that work. What we were working on was building an open and interoperable trustworthy safe Internet really. Through that work, we realized the metaverse is not the destination rather it's a sort of conglomerate of emerging technologies. Supported by AI and spacial computing that are integrating into Internet experiences and that's what we want to focus on right now. How do we use these things. What is the future Internet and how are we getting there? If anything, we have heard that we know the Internet is sort of an evolving concept when it began, it wasn't this. I will start that with the next question for Robin. Meta is a huge player in the Internet space. When meta started, it was Facebook, you disrupted the Internet. You defined what it meant to be connected. What does meta think the future of the Internet looks like? What kind of products it feel its is integrating into the future? How do you think about that from a user perspective?
>> Thanks. I am so glad to be here with you all. We're super excited about the future of the Internet. You can tell by the level of energy we're bringing into product releases and the speed of development that we're pursuing. I think we see the metahertz as the next evolution. It will be the successor to today's ecosystem. It will use multiple senses, body language and spacial awareness. So really bringing digital technology to life for people in a nice and profound way. In many ways, I like to think of it in I'd's experience, the Internet is (sound cutting in and out) it is not immersive. So now when you think about what the metaverse is going to look like, it's really going to transform the way we connect with people because it is going to have that immersive quality. It will really allow to you have shared experiences as opposed to just shared expectation. Having the difference of having a phone call or a text message chatter with someone versus having the ability to have a shared experience with someone across the country and across the world. I think of the potential this has for me to be able to see concerts or basketball games with my sister. I live in D.C and she lives in California thousands of miles away. The future of the Internet is really going to bring people closer together in a more intimate way. It is something enhancing experiences though. It is not going to be replacing social connection. Ask that's really important because I think, you know, one of the things that people get concerned about is that it could create parasocial relationships in ways that just don't reflect the closeness that we want to have today. The metaverse is really going to drive increased connectedness and shared experience, but it is not going to be replacing the drive to have that in‑person connection. In addition to that, I think one of the things that we think is going to be most relevant, right, with the future of the Internet and the role that the metaverse is going to play in that is how it is going to impact the economy, the way that we work, the way that we learn. You can see the kinds of advances in education, in economic development, and even in workforce training. So that's really exciting to see the different types of things that bringing people closer together is going to allow once you add that immersive component. I think one of the other things that we are really thinking about and this sort of speaks to the second part of your question. What is the future of the Internet look like? We're very committed to the idea of having the open interoperable Internet, but this also means collaborative development. This means that we want and we think for the metaverse to really grow and reach its maximum potential, we need to be working closely not only with companies of all sizes, but also with developers, with creators and with users to make sure that we are building the kinds of innovative technologies and experiences that people want and need. There's two things (sound cutting in and out) a lot of times folks think metaverse is one thing and AI is another thing. One of the things that's becoming increasingly clear in the development space is that AI has always been (?) and to meta's vision of the metaverse in particular. We can see that reflected in quest 3. We have end to end AI modeling for sensing space. And (sound cutting in and out) and I think there's another great example of where AI is essential to the development and option of the metaverse. You're going to have things like virtual assistants that are extremely powerful. We're going to be using smart glasses that combine ‑‑ we are today with meta ravens that combine mics, cameras speakers and they're going to be able to understand the world around you and provide that kind of super charged virtual assistance hands free. And that can be really world changing. In order to make this happen, it will be essential to have the global infrastructure that supports it. Data centers are a great example of some infrastructure that we're going to need. But in order to really (sound cutting in and out) in order to grow that infrastructure, it's going to be really important that we have a regulatory and legal environment that supports it. This means having globally predictable interoperable and adaptable regulations that promote digital connectivity and really bridge the digital divide and that promote data glows and secure communications like encryption of data in transit.
>> JUDITH ESPINOZA: I really appreciate what you said about AI being part of these technologies. It is easy from a consumer perspective to look at silo developments. As we move into next phase, we can see none of this is developed on its own. They have to go together. AI is an enable are for the technologies, but it is not a product on its own. With that, I want to share part of the way that at the forum, we're envisioning the future. These are digital intermediaries for connection whether through social media, whether through commerce, health, agenda, AI, you name it. One of those pathways forward is through digital public infrastructure. So the we people connect to each other also economic opportunity, growth and with that, I want to turn to Apostolos. How has Greece advanced the next iteration of the Internet experience with digital public infrastructure? How are you developing DPI in Greece and what are some of the governance opportunities that presents? DPI has enabled good governance as a means of connection.
>> APOSTOLOS PAPADOPOULOS: Thank you very much for your question and excited to be here. The Greek context, the country is in stages and phases. We are doing a lot more work and AI and working with emerging technologies. You were talking about experiences and I think the permeating deleting this would be trust and directness. And transparency. So citizens would like to interact with governments and they would like a direct and easy way to do that. The way to do that, um, so currently, they work in AI and we're doing work in (?). So citizens can interact with the government portal and easy ways to interact with every service. We're doing work in AI and education with digital and homework assignments. So in this, we're investing a lot and you and emerging digital public infrastructure. The first phase that allows to do that starts in 2019 with digital transformation ministry. And that was up to that point, some of that did not exist in Greece. And that created the baseline for the second phase to be able to be executed. So 2019 to 2023, there's a major tiger leap. Digital adoption was very low increased. 2018 we had 8.something million digital transactions in total. Greece is a country of about 10 million people. Very low number. But 2023 ended with 1.4 billion. You chart that, it's a potential growth both in terms of supply as well as demand. So this stage, this first stage created the regulatory framework. The engineering framework other the platforms for us to be able to go on the second phase and do more work with emerging calendars. And the regulatory framework speaking of that is a crucial layer of this stack. You have to have common sense. Light touch approaches, regulation. People can enter inside the government as well as external partners. Overall, I would say (sound cutting in and out) it is a given and digital is considered something that is (?). This is what people expect and businesses expect of the government.
>> JUDITH ESPINOZA: This I so much. Year talking about exponential growth and usership. In following this, do you see this as an essential way for financial growth for the country? You're connecting peer to peer, also services to peer and also for businesses as well. How do you see this growth?
>> APOSTOLOS PAPADOPOULOS: Um, very positively. One of the deliverables of this approach has been 2.5 billion dollars. We have ‑‑ Greece is the only European member state, the only European member state along with Poland. (sound cutting in and out) do you hear me better now? Okay. Great. So FDI is a crucial part of the equation. Can you hear me better? Yes. That is fantastic. We had a microphone problem. FDI is crucial and is direct radio duct of the strategy. And the execution of the strategy. So the Greek government has been working with international local partners and there's been a great synergy between all the stakeholders. And both in terms of job growth as well as in terms of investments has been a very positive source so far.
>> JUDITH ESPINOZA: Thank you so much. With that, there's an interesting narrative we're starting to Lee here which is investment and that leads to growth and opportunity. And that builds good governance. It builds better governance and trust. I really want to pivot now to Brittan. We're talking about the Internet of all and as these technologies evolve, I wonder what do you think are the core regulatory and policy obstacles to really make a better Internet? Where can we do things better? Are there any new risks regulators should pay attention to?
>> Thank you. Can you all hear me? Great. So I teach international law and AI regulation and have worked in emerging technologies for about 8 years now. I'm going to give you the conclusion first. The conclusion is that emerging technologies are a constellation and if your regulatory approach focus ones on one aspect in Lieu of the others, you're going to miss the bigger picture. So you have to think about the way AI will be interacting with oh merging systems. We'll look at all of those systems will feed off each other, will interact with each other and how existing law may not be a clean fit for need new technologies. There are four things that I think can be valuable when you're trying to figure out this buzzel about if you're existing law will fit and how to determine what needs to be addressed first in a regulatory regime. The first obstacle is ensuring the first regimes were designed in the late 1990s and early 2000s are adoptable enough to keep pious with the reef solution of these technologies. One example that I work a lot on are virtual reality and XR systems. Last year, they called existing law and extended reality because you can't just take laws formulated for two deep computing. You put them interest 3D M spaces. The we you formulate the jurisdiction, the way operation concerns is different from your lap because it has sensor says that must reach out into the environment to calculate your device. Your private looks different when it is not just the words going in and out of the servers. So looking at that, how does ‑‑ how adaptable is your legal system?
Second is the across border regulation. I know it sounds lame coming straight at you from 2006, but it is a very important issue. Upon when you look at all of this, look at it with all guns embedded ‑‑ all of the things you worked government about how it works and manifests in your stakeholder group, you have a chance to do it directly this time. Take that opportunity. So looking at the way that data protection laws align with regulations in other parts of the world so we don't create another regulatory landscape and how do you create the coordination necessary to make this work across different countries. Third is a question of accountable and transparency. As we rely more on automated system, the question of who is responsible when something inevitable goes wrong becomes much more complicated. So when I evaluate AI regulatory regimes, it's not just the robustness or strength of the lays that I look at. It's the actual enforceability of those regulations. And the way that laws that are cut and pasted from one country and placed into another legal content may not have the same impact on the ground and on the business sector based on how your corporate laws are structured. You can't expect the same results by cutting and partying. And finally, in terms of new risks, one is erosion of privacy. As these technologies are, you see enabled granular tracking and profiling sometimes without knowledge or consent. In new technologies where AI walks aught into the world amongst us, you need this type of calculation to roll type of privacy. Overall, regulators need to think about the risks on a broad scale focuses on fundamental rights while fostering innovation. The new ecosystem is good for users is also good for human rights. So they don't have to develop at odds with each other when you're trying to state the systems. Thank you.
>> JUDITH ESPINOZA: This is the perfect segway. We heard now what the policy gabs are. This is governance and policy. From your perspective. You advise multiple cities and companies, what are the things you develop. How do you think and can be built in a trustworthy way? We want to talk about how you build trust with users, but what are the metrics then to know that something is trust worthy? We can say that. How can we move ‑‑
>> One of the most important censors is how you can bring (?) interest the trustworths. Into the functionality you're putting into the market. We have talked about several frameworks that exist shall and then passe, which is mostly ‑‑ that's addressable to accountable, transparency, security, inclusivity and operability. When you see things being provided today, you can't see a wholistic deployment and I think now in 2024 when we are trying to do the research group and any kind of AI top tier conferences what I see very positive is the fact they kind of encourage you to make sure that you're algorithm is accessible and the transparency is available in the system. That's quite and you don't get access to publication unless you do that. And I would like to see the notches as well as existing on the platform level. When we talk about the social media platform, we don't see the same level of transparency. I'm not talking about annual reporting or reporting that exists at specific level, but that kind of dynamic, quick at the tip of your finger level of ethical transparency that exists that would tell you who used your data, for what purpose you use your data. That's end user dashboard platform that should exist for user. And I think in the research space, we do a lot to improve security. We do a lot to have, you know, privacy aspects, zero trust systems. Federated learning. These big tools that takes us sometimes years to develop in order to bring trustworthiness and level of security into the technology but not necessarily always we see them used or transformed into the product cycle. So that's kind of concerning on the map on the wholistic map. And I think this area of 2025 to 2030 would be the period where we perfect this, perfect this kind of transitioning of ethical components in technology. That's the first date or challenge that we see across the map. And the second challenge is for us to understand that bridging ethical and trustworthy of digital solutions into the platform is a multi‑tack layer kind of challenge. So you're not dealing only with the technology or with the ethical stack, but dealing with regulations aspects, Harmonization that exists across the globe. You're dealing with how we should those into policies as well as regulations that would bring data into action and different jurisdictions expecting the differences of those jurisdictions is very important.
Brittan just said, it is quite different to bring activation of flows when you're dealing with that in specific jurisdiction versus another. We should respect that. We should allow those legal sovereignty to the rights. It worries me that everybody is looking at the EU, for example, AI as the grand flagship, regulations which is not going to be the same. It is risk oriented kind of framework of legislation that might not work much for Asian countries. They're more concerned about the value kind of approach and they want that to be translated into the platform. So interpretation into the platform is very important.
Your second question is: What do we have to include when we're talking about the trust stack across the board? If you ask the technology oriented person, the answers will be different than if you ask a willing kind of entity and if you asked a different stakeholder who is coming from the policy framework or from the implementation the first thing we should have is a single source of truth like a good of the ‑‑ the first layer is the ability to allow users to have accessibility to their data and also visibility of data transactions that exist across the map and authenticating who actually acts as those data transactions at different layers of the mapping. This is something we had in conversation and research communities as well as industrial communities in 2009. We had this massive technology where a user woke up one day and realized they wanted an acquisition of their own. Accessibility to data and accessibility to data market is considered today an economy by itself. The work we're seeing around the DPIs and the government technologies which is the new rise of technologies that we are going to see until 2030 is goodbye. So it's a huge industry being developed on the data provideo. The second layer is about the security stack and this is what we already have and I think we have done quite a work. We have to protect the ability of those security stack especially if we're talking about the metaverse and this find of real too much bee need to shake sure they are fast enough. They are ‑‑ light and operations to be competed into different devices. And the third layer is the layer of legislation and regulations because it takes ‑‑ we have discussed this several times it takes a cycle of 3 years or less and technology development is not waiting for legislation to be passed. We see in new models of AI being deployed and pushed across countries. So if you confident produce maybe something.
>> I want to interest the in interest of time open this up to the audience. I want to see if anyone is questions. I can pass you the mic. Tell us where you're from and please.
>> Fantastic. My name is Ibraha. We work in supporting countries in Africa dealing with data governance frameworks which are up‑standard with the global best practices. With that in mind, this legal framework development is a second bite of that apple which is quite exciting. With countries in Africa which are led commerce into government space and with event of fast based development of technologies that require consuming and support of data, how do you expect countries in Africa and how do you advise with public sector actors at this point in time with enabling frameworks with supportive frameworks that are not stifling but creating that, you know, ability to drive value out of engagement to the Private Sector?
>> Ibrahim? Right? They produced the payment of infrastructure with the structure you cared about payment skills, identity, you care about accessibility to healthcare services and are the types of services on the platform and regulation. In Africa with examples that happened in Kenya and payment structure, they were globaling and I think it is one of the first or two payment global systems that existed. As well Rwanda itself is building loads of good stack when it comes to government tech. That is also pioneering on a government level. So I think there is a lot to learn from Africa when it comes to their mass deployment on to those structures and when we talked to like in 2023, we talked to the Minister of technology and infrastructure in Rwanda and they were also trying to ask this knowledge through African countries to African countries, which is great to see. My advice when it comes to developing legislation or regulations for government, technologies in general, touching emerging technologies not just one aspect of technology is try to embody what we have already seen in the global de facto which is a sandboxing approach. It normally is something we see mostly in financial sectors because you're trying to derisk the threat that might come into the financial space from adapting new technology or adapting a new emerging aspects into the mass deployment of the system. So a sandboxing approach into those technologies between Private Sector and public sector is quite important. This is what we try to push forward as well. We have established this global trade structure where countries are encouraged to come and be boarded to understand how they can deploy specific technologies like KI into different domains not just in the government but as well in the popular sector as well as industry. So I think learning from those global examples and building your own niche local examples is quite important for you to understand the current pressing needed and your markets and try to keep that kind of Indigenous space of solution making. And build your own jurisdiction of regulations and policies because this is something you should not as Brittan said, you should understand the problems and challenges in the ground and you're trying to solve for because it is part of the sovereignty aspects of technologies, sovereignty aspects of data and infrastructure that you will be developing for these type of technologies across the map.
>> JUDITH ESPINOZA: Do we have anyone else in the room with a question? Can we pull up the chat from the Zoom room so we can also look at that? While we wait for that to come in, I want to ‑‑ we have touched on some of these, but I want to ‑‑ I want to touch on something that came up here in this conversation and I want to really ‑‑ there seems to tension in most bodies but the Internet that we develop isn't fragmented. And a large part of that is the static that you touched on and a lot of that is this really global data stewardship. We're talking about tech and talking about platforms that really span multiple physical jurisdictions across countries and nations regionally. I want to come in and open this up. I want to direct it to Robin. How is meta thinking about this data stewardship of this technology of this future Internet? All of these technologies are changing the way users produce data or on track with data. How is meta thinking about this and how do you see it building on that user trust?
>> That's such an important question. I think it applies not only when you're thinking about the metaverse and AI and things like that, but really to the way we're interacting with the Internet in general. I think we really need to get crisp on what we mean by sovereignty. There are approaches and definitions to digital sovereignty. For some, it can mean sovereignty of government and often that historically has been very territorial in nature and physical in nature. But then with the Internet, that sort of shifts all of that but then there's also the concept of personal sovereignty, digital sovereignty. So I think one of the most important things to do is make sure that as we are, you know, creating different governance frameworks, we're doing two things. One making sure that they're interoperable with one another so that we are not creating frameworks that are not compatible so that you can't offer services in two separate jurisdictions at the same time that are more or less the same. And so I think that's sort of one of the key things essential to ensuring that is making sure as I mentioned earlier, we're promoting things that are foundational to an open interoperable and secure Internet in particular the free flow of data across borders and digital security and broader adoption of some of the best technologies and tools that we have to augment digital security like data transit and data at rest.
The second thing we need to make sure the government is adaptable. And that is a really hard needle to thread. We do this in every space of digital governance, the best we can, but we're still really trying to get to good. And the reason for that is because it's really hard to know what the future is going to look like. I think Brittan was absolute hitting the nail on the head when she's talking about these lays that were often applying today that were created in the '80s, '90s and early on. They don't fit with the technologies of today. So let's take that as a cautionary tale not only around making sure that we are not just copy pasting and making the mistakes of government, but also making sure that as we're creating legal frameworks, we're building them ‑‑ sorry. This keeps going out on me. We're building them with enough flexibility and adaptable and in a way that in some sense, it is really technology neutral even though we're still talking about governance so that if 20, 30 years, we're not in the same position where we have a slower to develop legal framework than technology is adopted that really is not fit for purpose. To that end, governments has to be collaborative, cooperative and multi‑stakeholder. One of the most essential things in how we think any not only product ‑‑ excuse me. Product and service governance, but also just creating what the policy frameworks and legal frameworks around the world what we think they should look like is making sure that we're collaborating with other Private Sector peers not only within our sector but with other kinds of companies in different sectors as well. Collaborating with government, Civil Society, academia and users and I think that's one of the great examples of why IGF is so critical. It gives us this opportunity to come together and really promote that stakeholders. I think the last thing is we have responsible innovation principles. And one of the things important about this is we have developed them in a way that is meant to be adaptable and just the same way that I'm sort of suggesting are legal frameworks need to be adaptable. They're high level principles we have to execute on in the way users trust and the way that we know are doing that right is because users are happy with it and it's exactly like Brittan said. What is good for users is good for human rights and what is good for users and human rights is good for economic development and digital transformation. They're never to surprise people. I good example of that is on our smart glasses, the meta Ray‑Bans, if they're turned on, you can see a little LED light. So people will know if a person in their script is using the ‑‑ vicinity is using the glasses to take pictures or live stream. If the use are tries to cover up the LED, they'll get a prompt they have to run cover it in order to use the product as they want. In addition to that, we want to provide controls that matter. This is especially important as it comes ‑‑ as it applies to youth using our products. Not making sure youths have controls and we're starting with built in privacy by default, but also making sure that parents have the kinds of controls that they want so they can play a really active role in guiding the experiences their children are having online using these technologies. In addition to that, consider everybody. Consider everybody is our third principle and it is really meant to insure accessibility. It is an Internet and these are technologies for everybody. An example of how we do that is by making sure that we have adjusted height, for example, on our meta horizon operating system, which means that whether you are standing up or sitting down, you can have the same really comfortable experience in VR. We also put people first principle. This is all about privacy and security. I'm sorry. I am not good at holding microphones.
[Laughter]
You'd think I was a digital Native. So some of this would be easier. I'm not great with technology. I guess this isn't really digital technology. So anyways, put people first. Privacy security I can go on about that for a very long time in the context of, you know, VR in particular metaverse. VR and augmented reality and XR, I think we think a lot first and foremost any the youth experience and making sure that we're building privacy and security into that. But then the other aspect of that is making shire that adults have that same kind of control over their experiences and autonomy. We implement this through a lot of different approaches that range from the kinds of user controls that we have talked about, but also privacy enhancing techniques like processing data on device. And then we also try to minimize data collection as much as we can. And then we do safety and integrity as one of the major things. I think you'll notice that safety and integrity principles are woven throughout some of our other principles, but it is also it's own stand alone principle. We really try to live that and make sure our users can experience that by fostering safe and healthy communities. We want to make sure we're promoting communities where people can gather with shared intent incentives and establish positive norms to connect online. We want to be empowering people, developers, creators and users with the kinds of tools to create the experiences they want. But we also need to make sure that people with bad intentions are not able to just do whatever they want on services. We have a code of conduct for virtual experiences that make sure that we do things like prohibit illegal, abuse ‑‑ of behavior that promotes illegal activity or behavior that could lead to physical harm. And then we're also doing things to promote admins and their ability to moderate their spaces. So we want to make sure that as we're thinking about these things, those high level values and principles are really adapted into governance structures that governments are considering so that we can be maximizing voice, safety, authenticity, dignity and privacy in the growing adoption of these new technologies.
>> JUDITH ESPINOZA: Thank you, Robin. I want to touch on one thing that I think is really important. When you're developing the frameworks, you really do need a full approach. There is something interesting which there isn't an alignment of interest. Trust makes things work. When a user trusts a technology or trusts a platform or a service, that can expand opportunity for growth. I want to pass this on to Apostolos now. You're sort of the example of what privacy public cooperation can do. It is the bread and butter we do at the forum. I want to ask you: How does Greece approach this issue of data? How do you approach data stewardship? How do you come up with frameworks that are trustworthy and leverage all of these new technological innovations so beam have better access and then I'm going to pass on to Brittan after that on a similar question. I will let Apostolos go first.
>> APOSTOLOS PAPADOPOULOS: Um, everything that was done and is still being done has always put users first, citizens first, their data and everything happens with consent. So my colleagues here mentioned a bunch of great words earlier, transparency, consent is important. So anything any time digital service whether that's commenced by the citizens or by another government organization has to access data. The citizen has to consent to that data processing. Other than that, from an institutional perspective, when the ministry was created, the Minister was designed that he was CIO roles, let's say. That means he or they had the unilateral power to connect any data set they want. But connect is the operative keyword here. It is not about owning the data sets. It's not about owning the data. It is simply connecting different registries with the intent of producing a digital service outcome for the citizen and the citizen has explicitly asked for that. It is not about the government going out there on its own and processing data and creating new registries and creating stuff like that. But it is about creating the experience and creating the trust culture that people know. Oh, I want to do XYZ. Here's how to do it. Here is one platform to do it. It's being done in a transparent way to me and to my understanding. So trust, openness, trustworthiness are defining characteristics of the digital strategy.
>> JUDITH ESPINOZA: Thank you so much. You know, when we talk about traditional digital public infrastructure, the things that come up always are data exchange, online payment systems and digital identity. Across the stage, we see how people approach that in different ways whether you're building soft digital identities through a meta account or Google account or whatever it is, but they all sort of build on this aspect of connection. And I want to pass on to you, Brittan. What do you think are the gaps? We're talking about theoretically and we see this alignment. But what do you think is the gap to take us there? You can talk about it but what do you think are the gaps there to all align and take this work forward?
>> BRITTAN HELLER: Three things. Number 1, I think if we are not deliberate at creating spaces for cultural engagement and education in the next iteration of the Internet, we will not have them in the same way we did in the first. When you look at people who created the Internet, the first time they all were professors who were trying to share information, they really privileged and worked for government organizations. They got their funding from government organizations. With the next iteration, it is not a natural evolution to have a cultural society emerge. You can look at this with metaverse where you saw certain countries starting to create cultural properties. Barbados created an embassy in the metaverse. South Korea had a widespread presence and if you with look at Saudi Arabia, there's actually augmented reality aspects of their cultural tours when you go to some UNESCO world cultural sites. You have to think about things your people value. The things that make you special translate into new mediums of computing.
Second, you have to think about hardware floor. The hardware floor for some of these is not solidified yet. We risk creating fragmentation via technical means when we may not mean for that to happen. But the example for that is magic leap just announced they are going to stop supporting their first addition of their XR headset. So all content created for the last 8 years will no longer be accessible in a matter of weeks. This is happening again they were very, very concerned about the loss of their data and creative energy because the hardware floor is not settled. There are works starting to emerge like the metaverse standards. Most people are surprised to learn it is just this year that the file format for 3D assets to move between worlds and function between worlds was created by Adobe. So the PDF we're really at that phase and some of these new computing platforms. So you have to think about what that means and what will be lost if we don't bring it along. I think the final piece is looking at ways that concepts like consent can be evolved with new computing platforms. I did a study that was published and there was a conference about spacial computing. Strange for an international what professor to be there. We were looking at different ways that the notice and consent mechanisms that you have in flat screen traditional computing can be adapted to 3D computing and the affordances of 3D technology you can do it differently. And we found that yes, you could do it differently. Users liked the mechanism that we built that showed them their eyes are being tracked and how the eye tracking was working. Thigh responded really, really positively to that and then they felt they were able to consent to the use of their data in more meaningfully informed ways. That's kind of to what a lot of companies thought if you showed people their eyes were being tracked, it might freaking them out to be honest. But they liked understanding what the data flows, we visualized the data flows for them and explained to them how the device worked. That was the BASIS for the consent. You have to does it in 3D. Those are the three pieces that might get overlooked if we're just looking at it through a pure platform policy or lens.
>> JUDITH ESPINOZA: We have now the warning 2 minute mark, but I want to wrap up. There is good takeaways to this. First when we think about the future Internet, all of us are active participants in how we build that future together. None of us are like passive users. We all have an active role in how we shape that. I want to feel empowered that what we do matters from a user standpoint and whatever way you join us. We'll chat in a bit with him here, but the second take away is regardless of what the future Internet looks like, right, we have to make sure we're taking a principled approach to how we do this. The user is at the center. The infrastructure really is a means to further whether economic opportunity or connectivity whether it's metaverse, projects are the ones that Brittan mentioned and also there's the do over now. They created this ‑‑
>> We have as well the one with MR and land authority where you pay. They developed the strategy to wide scale of industries and we are encouraging the industry to build that kind of metaverse collaborative space that reflects back into the economy and if the structures are. It is about how the leadership of this space would happen. We have advocacy on across the map from the leaders of the country which translate to building economies and companies and solutions across the map.
>> JUDITH ESPINOZA: We see how metaverse is being build into DPI. This is perk fort how people will experience. I think lastly, all of our incentives align. Foe one advocates and no one wants a bad future. It is important to come together. To close up, I want to thank the IGF for allowing us to have this space. Also really great collaborator in what we do. The feel take away is this is the example of what we want moving forward. This is all of society represented on this panel and through the work we have been doing. I encourage you to take that with you and be active participants in the future Internet. It's not static. It's a product that keeps evolving. Thank you so much. I will let all of us go. Thank you for spending the last day of the forum with us. We're super grateful. If you have questions and want to hang around, we'll be here for a few more minutes. Round of applause for our wonderful panel.
[APPLAUSE]