雖然去年在新加坡已經有實際會議，不過去年和今年也是以個人身分線上參與，節省個人差旅支出，也能把握時間在思考議題上。今年的主題「Emerging Technologies – Is Asia Pacific Ready for the Next Phase of the Internet?」討論的內容比較偏向呈現亞太地區的觀點，在發展與應用新興科技之下，如何重視包容與人權相關的議題，免不了會以今年最熱門人工智慧(AI)為主要的討論核心。
最棒的是今年聯合國IGF也接著在 APrIGF 後還有一個一整天的 Parliamentary Track，這則是接下來10月在日本京都的聯合國 IGF 會議呈現亞太觀點的討論內容。由於是亞太地區的觀點，所以也難免會提到多元文化、經濟發展、地緣政治的影響以致於各國、各區域的發展情況不一。
以下的內容中英夾雜，有興趣者可以自己再用機器翻譯。
一些很有用的網站
- 全球科技政策匯集網站 The Global Tech Policy Atlas
由澳洲國家大學政策設計研究中心的研究人員以人力搜集全球科技政策的網站，台灣也在收集的對象中。 - 太平洋地區國家的資料匯集網站 Pacific Data Hub
這裡面的資料對於觀察氣候變遷對太平洋國家的影響十分重要。 - Opennet Korea
Open net Korea 是主張網路中立，倡議言論自由的組織。台灣在觀察國際科技政策發展時，多會參考歐盟、美國、英國、日本、新加坡、中國。其實亞太地區的韓國是值得觀察和參考的國家，韓國政府的資料治理政策與法案是值得參考的對象。
參與的場次和回應
從2016年到現在，在會議裡的發言是表達意見的管道之一，但我總在想要如何讓自己的意見不是只有在麥克風前講完就沒有了，我從2020年開始便決定把意見都整理到主要的文件裡。APrIGF會議後會將意見整理為一份意見書(Synthesis Document)，並在聯合國 IGF 裡表達亞太區的主張和意見。我不是每一場參與都能馬上產出意見，以下把自己有產出的內容也貼來這裡備份。
AI in Asia-Pacific: Charting a Path for Responsible Innovation
In my observation, several Western nations have established their own AI governance frameworks. However, before these frameworks were put in place, they first established foundational principles and regulations regarding data, cross-border data transmission, usage, privacy, and security requirements.
Within the diverse landscape of Asia, both Japan and South Korea have released their own data and copyright regulations and principles. Similarly, China has issued guidance on AI and generative AI labeling, accompanied by substantial governmental laws and regulations concerning AI and data. Indian Prime Minister Modi advocated for a global ethical AI framework during the B20 summit.
Shifting to the business perspective, certain enterprises have formed alliances to urge government regulations on AI development, while concurrently investing in or developing AI applications.
From a community standpoint, aside from concerns about potential AI applications negatively impacting human rights or employment opportunities, it’s also imperative to contemplate how AI can be harnessed to enhance our well-being. This mirrors the evolution of the Industrial Revolution, where despite initial worries about automation and computerization impinging on individual rights, society ultimately found ways to adapt, improve productivity, and boost the economy.
Stronger together: Amplifying multistakeholder voices in cyber diplomacy
There are some issues worth discussing more in this session.
- 1) Time difference is one of the issues for the global community. The UI is not really friendly to online participants in different time zones. It usually shows in UTC or in CEST but Asian participants need to figure it out by themselves.
- 2) Gender issues, especially when the sponsors may have a limited budget, they would support a single man or woman, not a woman with children or family concerns.
- 3) It may not have enough budget to support facilities for disabled participants.
- 4) There should be more think tanks to participate the digital/cyber diplomacy, but it depends on the whole society and the development in different countries.
- 5) There are some people facing internet shutdown and government surveillance issues, how could make more stakeholders to participate it?
A Framework for Developing Gender-responsive Cybersecurity Policy
APC’s framework looks good and practical. I hope it can improve a more safe, respectful, and free cyberspace.
In my observation, cyberspace is not enough for women and gender diversity groups to express their opinions. They are easier to be attacked on the public internet. The same (policy) opinions from men or women will show different conditions. The opinions provided by men will be not challenged strictly and people will focus on the opinions. But if the opinions are provided by women or other gender diversity groups, the focus will be led to their privacy issues, gender, or families. Seldom people will focus on their opinions. Some harmful words also attack them.
Maybe try to hide genders when people express their opinions, try not to point out their genders in their words. It is easy in English but not easy in Chinese characters.
Internationalised Domain Names: Implementation around APAC – Lessons, Challenges & Opportunities
I would like to use “information asymmetric” instead of “market failure”, as it more accurately describes the situation where individuals are unaware that they can acquire a domain name in their native language.
Ordinary internet users often opt for social media platforms to voice their opinions rather than owning or managing a website. Their focus lies in conveying their intended message while conserving time on communication. Maintenance tasks are not their preference, and the cost of obtaining a domain name, particularly multiple ones, can be prohibitive. Additionally, businesses must consider their target audience and determine the languages that facilitate easier website access.
Domain names serve purposes of identification and branding, constituting integral elements of a company’s identity framework. Nonetheless, if a company employs distinct characters in its domain name, consumer confusion might arise.
Considering the broader computing interface, the internet, and user interfaces designed for internet access follow the left-to-right, horizontal layout of English text. This contrasts with the vertical reading orientation of traditional Chinese books.
註：以上英文段落都有再使用ChatGPT調整過。
關於今年會議的感想
與去年相較起來，今年比較沒有消費者保護的議題，去年就有討論到 Dark Patterns ，在歐盟、美國、英國有相關的政策或原則，但台灣今年的關注還是在網路詐騙，如果要訂出避免出現Dark Patterns 的原則和政策，建議和電商業者仔細討論可行性，也要和消費者討論他們的不愉快經驗，我在社群平台上看了不少關於台灣一些組織的行為，目前似乎沒有明確的規範。
人工智慧是大家關注的議題，亞太區的韓國、日本、中國都有發展上的相關規範，有些在資料的流通與運用，日本則是在專利、著作權上的宣告，中國最近則是公布了人工智慧程式在標識 (Labeling) 上的規範並徵求意見。印度、印尼也著手訂立相關的法規，且印尼已經公布了個人資料保護的法的草案，台灣在8月31日公布了國科會所擬的10條公務部門在使用生成式人工智慧的原則。
在 9 月1 日的 Parliamentary Track 裡有人問到產業的發展，這是這幾天裡最難的問題。不同於歐盟先以區域性的資料保護、資料流通、競爭法、資料法、資料治理法來完備基礎，而亞太地區各國的發展都是各國各自發展，網路科技也是存在著先進者優勢和大者恆大的情況，加上地緣政治的影響，說要發展人工智慧的產業，基礎可能還是在英語系國家提供的服務之上。
今年主題傾向人權的倡議。有些參與者的背景是研究學者，有仔細的收集各國政策和了解發展方向，有些參與者的發言可能還是以個人的需求為主，但這就是網路治理論壇有趣的地方。
因為 DiploFoundation 的線上課程和研討會，本來就已經習慣線上與會，疫情 3 年只讓我更習慣使用線上會議替代實質參與。實際參與的優點在於社交討論，或是可以見到很久沒見的朋友，但如果就會議討論的話，其實線上參與即可，現場參與反而會不小心模糊焦點在社群平台上，而沒把心力放在會議討論裡。從 2016 年參與至今，我都會問我自己，參與這些會議，到底是為了自己？還是對整體社會有什麼助益？想想，可能線上參與的效益比較高吧！
我比較認同一位經濟學家在Podcast裡提到自己很討厭浪費時間在機場作業裡，像是海關檢查、找登機門、臨時被改登機門、找行李這些與會議無關的瑣事，我其實也很厭倦這些不得不的行政作業，雖然很想和久沒見面的朋友們面對面聊天，但得自己一個人完成從最節省成本的訂機票到訂旅館，占用太多時間，所以還是線上參與專注在會議上就好。
APrIGF 2024 在台北舉辦，台北交通很方便，網路也很方便，但聯合國IGF的人是否可以來現場參與還是未知數。
留言
發佈留言
請勿匿名留言，待審核後才會出現。