‘Black people live the estrangement that science fiction writers imagine.’

― Greg Tate (US writer, musician, and founding member of the Black Rock Coalition)

Just as the world began to step out of its paralysis and panic about the peak of the COVID-19 curve, another apocalyptic image shook our supposedly shared sense of humanity, which is too often taken for granted. The initial shock from the media footage of police brutality on the streets of the USA and the echo of another ‘I can’t breathe‘ plead just before an arrested black person dies are avalanching waves of anger, grief, protests demanding the defunding of the police and community initiatives around the world. Resembling one of the first examples of viral media – the VHS tape of the violent beating of Rodney King – these juxtaposed snapshots brings us to the chilling realisation that the reality black and brown people face outside and inside of their homes in 2020 is disturbingly similar to that of 1991, as well as the horrific history preceding it. While cracking the thin surface of democratic staging to reactions of disbelief and anger, the ones we are witnessing today only bring to light the enormous shadow side of society called systemic oppression.

Source: Sara Dević, 2020. ‘Black Lives Matter’ protest in Washington in June 2020.

An inequality that is incomprehensible, irrational, denied, and normalised, can only be recognised when recorded, shown in detail, and distributed widely. Technology has been shown to be instrumental and controversial for both understanding and facilitating this continually damaging segregation, acting as an amplifier in both directions. While communication technologies offer viral polarisation of political opinions, and spread fear, panic, and anger, they also create a space for awakening to social inequalities, and to hearing and understanding the importance of Black Lives Matter. Through the momentum of public attention caused by the shock therapy from real-life events, means of communication broaden the space for narrative and voicing. These moments are key to enabling the social sensory apparatus to hear stories that have not been registered as part of that society, and directly affect its functioning, enabling changes such as inclusive terminology in software to replace racially fueled terms such as “master”,”slave”, “blacklist” and “whitelist”. Narrative plays a much more valuable role than it is given credit for.

One such form of sociotechnical mesh is the subgenre of science fiction called Afrofuturism that brings to light the complex history of race and technology, a history that facilitates terror and offers a means of empowerment. Traditionally a genre about the ‘human’ as a universal being and ‘technology’ as the supernatural and artificial, science fiction has powerful contributions from positions that have historically been seen as on the periphery of the human. Only recently have these diverse narratives emerged within the fictional global literary and art landscape (Latinofuturism, Romafuturism), showing that fiction plays a strong cultural role in many community bonds. The genre shows the importance of storytelling as a way of survival. It imagines the future and reinvents the past from the perspective of those in a disadvantaged social position.

In this text we will delve into Afrofuturism in order to unravel its historical importance and the role it has in discourses on power and technology. These perspectives have also brought to light the dominant narratives within popular science fiction and culture that have revolved around a narrow definition of a lived human experience, which is predicated on a traditional western heteronormative perspective.

Source: Scene from the film Dirty Computer (Janelle Monáe, 2018).

Afrofuturism is a genre of black speculative fiction and culture, spanning science fiction writing, film, music such as jazz and hip hop, and visual art. Featuring names such as painter Jean-Michel Basquiat, writer Octavia Butler, and singer-songwriter George Clinton, it came to the forefront of Western cultural discussions with the appearance of Marvel’s 2018 film Black Panther. This recognition quickly opened the door to appropriation, as we saw in a controversial exhibition inspired by Afrofuturism in Berlin in 2019, showing 21 white, mostly male artists and 1 person of colour.

There is no need to go further than the telecommunications infrastructure to recall that old empires created networks, both on land and underwater, networks that still live in today’s digital infrastructures. The fastest data route from West Africa to the rest of the world is based on the old colonial underwater cable infrastructure that goes through London. Nevertheless, Africa remains the least connected continent in the world. Reflecting on the question of colonialism, one could also say that, historically, black people were subjugated by and transformed into technology, made tools of, dehumanised, devalued, and set to an industrial purpose. Therefore, the focus on technology as a key topic in Afrofuturism is that of facilitating empowerment, since the one who has access and means to technology is the one who has power. Logically, the genre transforms the role of black people in society, from being objects to becoming empowered subjects, giving them back their dignity, humanity, and recreating an erased history.

What this rich movement and genre teaches us is to rethink the social context of today, and the norms of accepted inequality which are founded on layers of convoluted history and politics.

‘Class, race, gender, sexism, nationalism, militarism […] the toxic energies of our time want to come through us. They want to come out. Hey need to be rewritten and we have to be conscious about how that happens, so that we’re not writing the same narrative’

― Adrienne Maree Brown

Besides understanding that historical infrastructures are intertwined with a colonial legacy, in contemporary technoculture it is important to acknowledge the extent to which the polarisation of opinions can be automated, quickly amplifying existing prejudices. Algorithmic radicalisation is the ease with which an opinion can find support online, and quickly get polarised through further connections. A perfect example of this is the case of Tay (Thinking About You), an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot introduced to the world by Microsoft on Twitter. It quickly became exponentially xenophobic and racist, and had to be shut down only 16 hours after its launch on 23 March 2016.

Source: Twitter, 2020. Header photo of chatbot TayTweets’ Twitter account (@TayandYou).

How did a teen girl chatbot go from ‘Hello world!’ to wishing feminists would burn in hell and black people would be sent to concentration camps in less than a day?

Speaking of software, bias can, and is, more often inscribed in the datasets that machine-learning algorithms are based on. The current market of facial-recognition software has most commonly been found to less accurately identify women, especially those of colour. Predictive AI software, such as Amazon Rekognition, broadly used by the police in several US states, has shown consistent levels of discrimination based on race and gender, inaccurately predicting and accusing black men and women of committing crimes. The demands of many digital and civil rights organisations, activists and researchers have finally gotten attention through the mass movement concerning civil liberties of black and brown communities, with many law enforcement agencies suspending their use of this software as we speak.

Digital policy and personal and social identities are entwined on every level, since policy governs the use and distribution of technology within a society. Race, gender and class, subjugated to the reinforcement of division in society, become an amplifying aspect of data colonialism, casting light on prescribed norms of algorithmic classification.

For this occasion, we’ll step into the genre of Afrofuturism to extract notions of colonisation and applications of the relationship between race and technology from this marginalised but vital field of storytelling. Drawing on three films in particular (Black Panther (2018), the film that mainstreamed Afrofuturism; Brother from Another Planet (1984); and Space is the Place (1974)) let’s consider a few scenes while still keeping in mind the footage of current police brutality towards black people.

Scene 1: Space is the Place

The first scene opens with young African Americans in a youth centre in Oakland in 1972. They’re singing, talking, playing table tennis, and relaxing. All of a sudden, we see a close-up of shiny futuristic shoes. Wearing them is a black man with a cape and a type of golden diadem on his head. He is accompanied by a pair of extravagantly costumed women, their faces obscured by massive gilded animal masks: one of a dog, one of an eagle. They appear vaguely Egyptian, but certainly not of this world.

Scene from the film Space is the Place (John Coney, 1974)

‘What it is, what it is?’
‘Why your shoes so big?’

‘Are those moon shoes?’ one girl asks.

‘How do we know you for real?’

‘How do we know you ain’t some old hippie or something?’ asks another.

Then the black mystical persona, played by author Sun Ra (born Herman Poole Blount), answers:

How do you know I’m real? I’m not real. I’m just like you. You don’t exist in this society. If you did, your people wouldn’t be seeking equal rights. You’re not real. If you were, you’d have some status among the nations of the world. So we’re both myths. I do not come to you as a reality; I come to you as a myth, because that’s what black people are. Myths. I came from a dream that the black man dreamed a long time ago. I’m actually a presence sent to you by your ancestors.

The man speaking is Sun Ra, one of the most influential Afrofuturist authors, in a movie called Space is the place.

Sun Ra was a prolific author, poet, and musician, who taught a course called ‘The Black Man in the Cosmos’ at the University of California, Berkeley. In interviews he claimed that he came from Saturn and that he was just visiting. His mystical half-Egyptian name, eccentric behaviour, and otherworldly music front an Afrofuturist ethos of spiritual strength in interfacing with American society. By legitimising a mythical existence, he gave both an answer to the inexplicable black condition and a hope for an elevated parallel existence which could be reached through music.

Source: Screenshot of the film Space is the Place (John Coney, 1974)

Sun Ra spent his youth in highly segregated Chicago where blacks lived in poverty and were confined to a certain area. This created a storyline of crime and punishment – living in confinement and dying in prison (A Pure Solar World: Sun Ra and the Birth of Afrofuturism). It meant the sanctioning of life and defining identity as the opposite, the other, a negation – not having, not being allowed, not talking. The black person in this sense lives the paradox of hypervisibility and invisibility, many authors have brought to light. They are noticed by everyone, but acknowledged by few. Sun Ra’s way of escape was through imagination, through myth, through the creation of another world, away from planet Earth altogether. He advocated redeeming power through that which was exoticised as superstitious, considered irrational, and primitive.

The power of such a fantasy spread to create a community and an activist movement, a strong social force and a genre that we now call Afrofuturism. As inspirational as Sun Ra’s character and work were, we will detach from his orbit to make space for other places of the Afrofuturist imaginarium, with his ensemble The Arkestra playing in the background.

‘Every desire

is an end

and every end

is a desire

then

the end of the world

is a desire of the world

what type of end do you desire?’

― Sun Ra, This Planet is Doomed: The Science Fiction Poetry

Scene 2: Brother from Another Planet

An alien falls to Earth, into Harlem, in 1984. He takes the identity of a mute black person gifted with healing hands. Word travels, and soon the black community starts paying him to repair electronic appliances, during which time he demonstrates the power to heal open wounds.

‘You don’t talk, huh? Well that’s good. If you don’t talk, you don’t talk people into things. You don’t talk, you don’t lie. You don’t talk, you can’t complain,’ we hear from the woman at the house at which he stays for a short period.

Scene from the film Brother from Another Planet (John Sayles, 1984)

While the lack of language is present throughout the film, encrypted coded communication allows the alien to escape the oppressors from his home planet and survive. This metaphor refers to the history of erasing African languages and the creation of alternative modes of communication, as black people had to resort to coded language in order to survive, too.

‘We need images of tomorrow, and our people need them more than most.’

― Samuel R. Delany (American author, 1978)

The systematic erasure of memory was done both by separating families and denying them their language, as to speak it meant death. Black history is like science fiction: abducted and subjected to extreme experiments, handed a future defined either by confinement or death, in a land where everyone else speaks and looks like an alien.

Source: Screenshot of the film Dirty Computer (Janelle Monáe, 2018).

Erasure around this topic doesn’t end there. The British government’s Operation Legacy targeted the removal of archives documenting torture in around 37 African countries. The records were either destroyed or sent back to England during the process of decolonisation. Caroline Elkins’ Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya, a Pulitzer-prize-winning account of atrocities in Kenya, wasn’t initially accepted because of its reliance on oral history. It achieved acclaim only when the British government released its archive material. What happens in cases when there are no official documents, or where the government responsible refuses to confirm such accounts, even though they are true?

Alongside the importance of thinking through these striking issues of erasure and silencing, the film explores the importance of coded, encrypted language as a means of connecting and understanding. While encryption is the basis of safe communication, the integrity of communication is more certain when creatively coded.

Back in the land of their ancestors, different conditions for the black community can be imagined. On that note, we will approach the third narrative.

Scene 3: Black Panther

An example of the harmonious existence with nature is the land of Wakanda from the movie Black Panther. It is a beautiful hidden jewel, technologically superior to the rest of the world. Its superiority lies in the fact that their technology is used for healing and maintaining the well-being of society, as opposed to conquering and invading. The black panther is an animal that never attacks, only defends. As a film, the Black Panther can be seen as an argument for the decentralisation of the technical market and the development of a more caring society, one that nurtures rather than destroys the very nature we live in. In effect, in times of global warming, the clock is ticking for humanity to take responsibility for its impact, and change its patterns of behaviour in order to survive as a species.

‘We will work to be an example of how we, brothers and sisters of this earth should treat each other. Now, more than ever, the illusion of division threatens our very existence. We all know the truth. More connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis, the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one, single tribe.’

Scene from the film Black Panther (Ryan Coogler, 2018)

Though true, to develop the sensory capacity to grasp the effect society has on the environment, the dominant social paradigms of hierarchy and power first have to heal their own receptors for internal mechanisms. Only by unlearning the norms under which identities are habituated is there space to grasp one person’s science fiction as another person’s reality. With the growth in populist politics and viral media, a critical and contextual approach to technologies that perpetuate oppression and affective behaviour has become more important than ever. While we’re living inside the high-speed train of tech-positivist arrogance, we often overlook how expression can be systemically silenced, and how specific parts of society are affected by this silencing. The role of technology is fundamental in shaping spaces of visibility, presence, and agency. Stepping out of fiction as a space for imagination that maintains the status quo while escaping to a better world, Afrofuturism (together with many other possible futurisms) offers keys for understanding where the social sensory apparatus is blinded and suffocated.

Source: Darija Medić, 2019. Exhibition Mundos Alternos: Art and Science Fiction in the Americas, Queens Museum, New York City.

More importantly, the value of storytelling serves as a reminder that narratives can be chosen, created, and then embodied as a life lived. Practising the change of narrative daily can lead to emergent strategies and change in the world. One in which communities would not need to fight for the right to breathe. This change begins by listening.

This blog post is part of a science fiction series that DiploFoundation is preparing, as a way of rethinking digital policy and society.

Additional material

As an inspiration for enhancing listening capacities, this reading comes with a sample playlist of Afrofuturist classics:

Jimi Hendrix – Electric Ladyland
George Clinton – Computer games
Herbie Hancock – Future shock
Bernie Worrel – Blackatronic Sciences
Parliament – Funkadelic Astrofunk
Sun Ra – Space is the place
Public Enemy – Fear of a Black Planet
Flying Lotus – Cosmogramma
Janelle Monáe – The Archandroid
Afrika Bambaataa & Soulsonic Force – Planet Rock

Last Friday, the German newspaper Die Zeit organised its third Artificial Intelligence (AI) conference. I was born in Germany and have just moved back after a nine-year stint in Great Britain, so I went to get my first direct impression of the country’s relationship to AI and to hear debates about digital politics in general. Much like the experience of the first few days back in the country, the conference was an exercise in encounters that seemed both extremely familiar and strangely different at the same time. While I could intuitively understand the cornerstones of the debate, they also seemed new and odd from the perspective of an outsider. And in between the two, I (re-)discovered the German AI strategy.

German AI strategy

Like a number of other countries, Germany is developing a national AI strategy. A preliminary Eckpunktepapier (white paper) is already available and the full strategy will most likely become public in November and be launched at the Digital Summit in early December. As with most of the other strategies, the German plan, unsurprisingly, aims to put the country in a leading position when it comes to AI, both in terms of research and practical applications in the business and service sectors.

Catching up

The Eckpunktepapier stresses that Germany is already in a good position to achieve its ambitious goal of becoming a leader in AI. It emphasises that key steps have been taken or are underway (examples include the High-Tech Strategy and the Platform Industrie 4.0).

Yet, the debate on the conference’s main stage and in its corridors was dominated by the argument that Germany needs to catch up. There was a palpable sense, not to say fear, that Germany is either behind or in danger of falling behind (den Anschluss verlieren) other countries, especially in terms of AI innovation and concrete business applications.

When I describe this particular attitude to friends abroad, I’m usually greeted by a lack of understanding. The German self-perception and how others perceive the country from the outside when it comes to leadership in technology and innovation are often at odds. To encounter self-critique so prominently in the debate struck me as typically German.  

Finding a third way

The increasingly digitalised world, the sharing economy, and the ongoing developments in automation and AI bring changes to the world of work. Several reports and studies released this month shed light on how these changes could look, how employers and employees perceive them, and what stakeholders can do to better prepare for the new world of work.

UK to adapt legislation to the ‘gig economy’

The so-called gig economy (or sharing economy) has brought new jobs, but also concerns about the rights and protection of people working in these new business models. Governments have started to pay more attention to these concerns, the most recent example coming from the UK.

In July 2017, a report commissioned by the UK government stated that the gig economy brings benefits to individuals (such as flexibility and control over how they work), but the employment legal framework needs to better protect them. Following up on this recommendation, the Good Work plan released this month proposes several measures for ensuring a balance between protecting the opportunities offered by ‘platform-based working’, and ensuring fairness for ‘those who work through these platforms and those who compete with them’. Among them is the introduction of the concept of ‘dependent contractors’ for gig-economy workers, and legal clarifications and practical tools to easily distinguish between employees and dependent contractors.

New insights into the impact of automation on jobs

Concerns about the future of work also come from ongoing technological advancements in automation and AI. Some worry that job automation will lead to significant unemployment rates. Others argue that technological progress will also generate new jobs, compensating for those lost, without significantly affecting employment rates.

PricewaterhouseCoopers’ latest study foresees three waves of automation in the next 20 years:

• Wave 1 – algorithmic (to early 2020s). Based on automation of simple computational tasks, this wave would see low displacement of jobs – around 3%.

• Wave 2 – augmentation (to late 2020s). A ‘dynamic interaction with technology for clerical support and decision making’ will affect more jobs.

• Wave 3 – autonomy (to mid-2030s). Up to 30% of jobs could be automatable.

Throughout all three waves, jobs automation is expected to vary significantly by industry sector, country, and type of worker. Overall, only around 20–25% of jobs in East Asian and Nordic economies are likely to be automated by the mid-2030s, while the percentage rises to over 40% in Eastern European countries. While transportation, manufacturing, and construction jobs are expected to be automated in a proportion of 40–50% by the mid-2030s, human health, social work, and education are less exposed. Highly educated workers will be faced with a lower potential of job automation, and women are likely to be more strongly affected by automation than men in the first two waves.

The report suggests several measures to ‘help people adjust to the new technologies’: education and (re)training, supporting job creation, protecting workers’ rights, and strengthening social safety nets. And, despite concerns about jobs being lost due to technological progress, governments and companies should support and invest in these new technologies. Otherwise, they will miss the opportunity to be at the forefront of technological progress, with negative social and economic consequences in the long run.

What do employers and employees think about AI at the workplace?

While many studies focus on predictions about the impact of automation and AI on jobs, there seems to be less insight into how this impact is perceived by companies and workers. Two studies published this month shed some light on this area.

According to a survey conducted by Willis Towers Watson in 38 countries, over half of the surveyed employers (57%) consider that the main goal of automation is to augment human performance and productivity (as opposed to replace humans to save costs). However, 38% of the employers surveyed declared themselves unprepared to identify reskilling pathways for people whose work is being affected by automation.

Employees seem to be ‘cautiously optimistic’ about the impact of AI on their work. A survey conducted by the Workforce Institute and Coleman Parkes Research in 8 countries found that only 34% of employees are concerned that AI would replace them at some point, while two-thirds would be more comfortable if employers were more transparent about how they plan to use AI in the workplace.

What next?

It is clear that digitalisation, automation, and AI will impact the world of work. So what measures should be taken, and by who, to ensure the future of work is a future we all want and can benefit from? The Global Commission on the Future of Work, established by the ILO, is one of the venues where such questions are being explored. It is likely that these issues will remain in focus for the years to come.

This post was originally published as an article in the February issue of the Geneva Digital Watch newsletter.

Six months into 2017, the digital weather remains unsettled. Various crises brought occasional storms. Internet growth and innovation triggered a few sunny spells. The digital weather remains similar to the annual forecast for 2017.

This mid-year review provides an analysis of the main policy trends. It is based on the GIP Digital Watch observatory’s ongoing analysis of digital developments, summarised during the GIP briefings on the last Tuesday of every month and the Geneva Digital Watch newsletter.

For each of ten major trends, the number in brackets indicates their original ranking in January 2017. Each of the trends includes what to expect in Internet governance until the end of the year.

1. (10) Digital realpolitik: from values to interests

Realpolitik dominated digital policy since the start of the year. Interest and power came into sharper focus. Major actors are adopting ‘bottom line’ positions on money or power.

Governments worldwide are taxing the Internet industry and imposing fines for monopoly practices. The Internet industry cannot be shielded any longer by the narrative of being a ‘different’ part of the economy. Tax authorities are following the creation of value in the digital economy and looking for ways to increase tax income. From 1 July, Australia is applying a 10% goods and services tax on digital products and services from overseas that are bought in Australia. When they cannot tax directly, governments are tending to strike tax deals as Italy and Indonesia have done. In the anti-monopoly field, the major development was the European Commision fine of €2.42 billion against Google for non-compliance with EU antitrust rules.

The first six months reinforced the trend of shifting from global discussions towards bilateral deals and plurilateral arrangements (Figure 1). This trend is already noticeable in the area of cybersecurity, where the last two years saw a fast growth in bilateral agreements and plurilateral arrangements (e.g. G20 states agreeing not to conduct economic cyber-espionage against each other).

What relevance do the 10 trends have in your region? Are there other trends that are more prominent in your country or region? Comments are welcome.

In the coming years, increasingly sophisticated big data analytics techniques will enable advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and automation technologies. However, at least in the short term, AI and big data analytics (BDA) will not completely replace the need for humans in business or finance. At Diplo’s Data Diplomacy Roundtable in April this year, Dr Kars Aznavour argued that big data analytics still requires a human element in two distinct areas before and after analysis: coming up with the question and interpreting the results. This requires smart decision-making and creativity from the researcher, and for now computers cannot match the creative capability of humans. Interpreting the question also requires a context derived from on-the-ground observations and qualitative awareness, both of which require humans.

This perspective was echoed in an interview I conducted with Mr Karl Wellner, CEO of the Papamarkou Wellner Asset Management, Inc. From his experience, algorithms and computer programs have changed the financial industry, but there will always be a need for humans to ‘pull the trigger’. For now, only humans can ask the right questions and examine the right information to make qualified decisions. Likewise, asset-management is often a very client-focused business, and human connection remains extremely relevant. According to Wellner, trust is needed to recommend certain investment solutions, and people are becoming frustrated with having to interact with machines all the time. His clients are increasingly looking for boutique investment firms that can give a more personalised, human approach. This backlash against impersonality may limit the potential for a fully-automated financial industry.

However, BDA and AI technology will continue to rapidly develop in the coming years, and the effects will be monumental. The emergence of the Internet of Things (IoT), in which billions of physical devices such as houses or cars will become connected to the Internet, provides huge potential for BDA. Likewise, as Mr Tony Baer, big data researcher at Ovum, points out, data will increasingly be processed in the Cloud: in 2017, 35-40% of new big data workloads will be stored in the Cloud, and this will pass 50% by 2019. These developments will exponentially increase the amount of data produced, as well as democratise who has access to this information.

Machine learning and automation will create innovative alternatives to countless human-based tasks, and the labour market will experience enormous upheaval in the coming years as the so-called ‘Digital Revolution’ picks up speed. There is huge debate about whether robotics and AI technology will create more job creation or destruction. The pessimistic side states that not only will the amount of available jobs decrease, but the quality of these jobs will as well. Blue-collar jobs are not the only jobs at risk: for perhaps the first time in human history, white collar jobs such as those in finance are also threatened, as pointed out by Prof. Richard Freeman, Harvard University, at the Global Dialogue on Decent jobs for all. On the other side, optimists often state that although the net impact on the amount of jobs is unknown, the quality of jobs left will increase. Speaking at the same panel Prof. Fu Xiaolan, Oxford University, argued that there will be greater demand for high-skilled jobs using IT knowledge, critical thinking, and creativity, and new service sectors will be created to manage and develop the AI industry.

Even more groundbreaking, however, is the paradigm shift in how humanity understands economics. Already, conceptions of the traditional producer-consumer model are being supplemented or even replaced by new business models such as those of the largest Internet companies, Google and Facebook. Instead of exchanging money for Google’s search engine service, users exchange their personal data, which Google then sells to advertisers. In An Introduction to Internet Governance, Dr Jovan Kurbalija describes user data as ‘the core economic resource’ of Internet companies. Similarly, Mr Steve Lohr, journalist, argues that this represents a fundamental shift in the way civilization conducts commerce. The guiding metric of business management of the past century, finance, is being replaced by data: In his book Data-ism: Inside the Big Data Revolution, Lohr argues that “‘financial capitalism’ could be replaced by ‘data capitalism’ in which “the center of gravity in business decision-making will swing toward data”’.

A fully automated, computer-driven world will transform traditional ideas about how to store and exchange value, and understanding big data will be essential. The future remains ambiguous, but by appreciating the changes on the horizon, we can hope to stay ahead of the curve.

Joseph Stiglitz’s prediction applies to the digital realm as well. The political and economic turbulence ahead of us in 2017 will lead to unsettled weather. Crises will cause occasional storms, including the risk of major disruptions to the Internet. However, the change and turbulence will bring some sunny spells, too. Crisis opens new possibilities.   

The forecast for 2017 starts with an analysis of the general backdrop for digital policy in 2017: the broad conceptual references for understanding the specific digital policy developments. A prediction of ten main digital policy developments for 2017 follows in the second part.

A. Backdrop for digital policy in 2017

Digital policy will be influenced by the challenge of synchronising the fast pace of digital developments with the much slower societal adjustments to technology-driven disruptions.

Digital growth is expected to further accelerate, mainly due to the new interplay between artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and big data. These three technological fields are behind driverless cars, robots, and many other smart devices, such as those recently displayed at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, USA (5–8 January 2017).

According to Nissan’s CEO Carlos Ghosn, in the next 10 years we will see more techno-driven disruption than in the last 50.

Accelerated digital growth will further test the techno-absorption capacity of modern society. In 2017, this test will play out in three main fields: the Internet and the crisis of globalisation, digital developments and jobs, and the social impact of the Internet.

The Internet and the crisis of globalisation

The crisis of globalisation can been seen from statistical data (slower growth in global trade than in economic development), public perception, and the increasing use of the term globalisation in a negative connotation. The crisis of globalisation will have an unavoidable impact on the Internet, which is the communications infrastructure of the global economy and society.

Over the last two decades, globalisation and the growth of the Internet have been closely interrelated. Looking ahead, if the crisis of globalisation leads to further restrictions in the movement of people, capital, and goods across national borders, the same is likely to happen with Internet cross-border traffic.

A less integrated global society would lead towards a more fragmented Internet along national and commercial borders. The fragmentation of the Internet would affect many segments of society, from business production processes that rely on an integrated Internet, to families that use Facebook, WhatsApp, and Skype to stay in touch while living in different countries and continents (refer to the World Economic Forum’s 2016 report on Internet fragmentation).

The crisis of globalisation also brings into focus a digital realpolitik, as opposed to the more idealistic views proclaiming the unstoppable technological march towards the ‘bright future of human society’. The crisis of globalisation, the tension between fragmentation and integration of the Internet, and the emergence of a digital realpolitik will influence many digital policy processes in 2017.

Digital developments and jobs

Jobs and employment, which will be high on political agendas in 2017, are directly affected by the digital economy. An increase in digital technology is often interpreted as leading to fewer available jobs.

Unemployment topped the list of What worries the world in a 2016 analysis conducted by IPSOS every month across 25 countries. Jobs were central in two major political developments in 2016: Brexit and the US presidential election. The need for better protection of jobs was one of the main drivers behind the Brexit victory. The promise of new jobs was one of the main messages in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

In parallel to growing political relevance, digitally driven automation has been rendering millions of jobs in traditional industries obsolete. This trend continues in services and other spheres of the economy. Even jobs in call centres, facilitated by the early Internet growth, may be replaced by an advanced mix of AI and speech recognition software. This trend will be further accelerated by the fast growth of AI and robotisation.

According to the World Bank’s 2016 World Development Report, jobs held by hotel and restaurant managers are less like to be automated, while financial professionals are most likely to be replaced by computers (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Interaction between technology and jobs
Source: World Bank’s 2016 World Development Report, p. 131

Different public policies to increase employment are under discussion. For example, Trump’s campaign promised major infrastructural projects which should employ more people. While such approaches may alleviate the problem temporarily, however, the structural tension between the fast disappearance of certain jobs due to technological developments, on the one hand, and the slower creation of new jobs, on the other, will remain.

In the digital era, Schumpeter’s creative destruction theory is often used to describe the disappearance of old industries and jobs and the appearance of new ones. However, digital reality is different due to a longer time-lag between closing old factories and re-integrating the workforce in new economic structures.

Some analysts argue that a digitally automated society will generate fewer jobs, and the lost jobs will not be replaced. How will it be possible to replace the 47% of jobs that are likely to disappear in the USA over the next two decades, as indicated by one study from Oxford University? Discussions on guaranteed minimum income have started to emerge, to deal with the potential of permanent unemployment. Finnish experiments with basic income scheme for randomly selected 2000 Finns. Similar initiatives are expected in 2017 and the coming years.

In 2017, the digital industry, as the main beneficiary of the new economy, will increasingly come under pressure to contribute to solving the social costs of fast digital developments. Stable societies with high social capital (e.g. educated population, social cohesion) are vital to the Internet industry, which depends more on social capital than, for example, oil or extraction industries.

So far, the contribution of the Internet industry to providing social stability and cohesion has been limited. According to a study by the US Public Interest Research Group, the top 30 US companies with most money held offshore include 10 major Internet companies. In 2017, a first constructive step could be for the Internet industry to reduce tax-withholding practices and make more robust investment in public and social projects worldwide. The implementation of the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) provides a wider context for such a contribution of the Internet industry.  

The social impact of the Internet

The adage that the Internet changes the way we live, work, and entertain has become a daily reality. Gadgets are evolving from interesting to essential devices, affecting our daily routines and deeper cultural patterns.

For example, driverless car will not only automate our physical moves from one location to another, but also change important parts of our culture built around the use of traditional cars. Cars have been a symbol of freedom, privacy, and emancipation for years. It remains to be seen how the driverless car will affect the deeper layers of our personal and cultural upbringing. Similar examples can be found with many other devices which will become ‘intelligent’ in the coming years.

Digital developments will also affect political elections, public policy deliberations, social cohesion, education, and entertainment. The list goes on. While the social impact of the Internet is often framed negatively, we should keep in mind the old saying that technology is neither good nor bad nor neutral.

The discussion on the social impact of the Internet has to be carefully framed. While our goal may be to address the negative aspects (reduction of social cohesion and solidarity, less critical thinking), we may end up undermining numerous positive digital developments.
 

B. Ten main digital policy predictions for 2017

From the general backdrop – globalisation, jobs, social impact – we move to ten specific trends that are likely to shape digital politics in 2017.

1. Cyber geopolitics: between conflict and cooperation

The main developments in 2016:

• Cyberpeace: between Cold War and détente
• Cybercrime increasingly exploits vulnerabilities
• DDoS attacks bring IoT security into focus

The cyber-driven tension between the USA and Russia marked the end of 2016 and the beginning of this year. Cybersecurity within the premier league of global politics will feature prominently on the agendas of G7, G20, and other high-level summits in 2017.

The main question will be whether the current crisis between the USA and Russia will evolve into a new cyber detente or a cold war. Some optimism can be found in the way China and the USA dealt with the crisis on economic cyber-espionage in 2015. The two countries not only resolved their bilateral tensions through dialogue, but introduced a prohibition on economic cyber-espionage in the G20 Antalya communiqué and in other policy documents.

Cybersecurity will be one of the urgent priorities for the Trump administration. In the first few months of 2017, the general contours of the future US cyber foreign policy will start emerging. During the year, we can also expect more focus on geopolitics between Russia and the USA (cybersecurity) and on  geo-economics between China and the USA (digital trade, economic espionage).

In addition to national security, cybersecurity will appear in a wide range of issues, from the fight against violent extremism to ensuring the personal security of Internet users who are increasingly exposed to cybercrime and other Internet misuses.

There will be increasing recognition of externalities of lack of security and information asymmetry regarding security, possibility leading to calls for voluntary or mandatory minimum security standards, in particular of IoT devices.

In 2017, the cybersecurity discussion will follow a maturing trend that started in 2016, by shifting from mainly sensational media coverage of cyber-attacks to in-depth discussions on the vulnerabilities of modern society and the possible ways to overcome cybersecurity risks.

In 2016, NATO declared cyberspace as its fourth military operation domain. G20 leaders addressed the issue of economic espionage. Many regional organisations put cybersecurity on the policy agenda. The OSCE introduced a second set of cybersecurity confidence-building measures. Over 30 cyber bilateral agreements were signed in 2016 (map of agreements). The United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UN GGE) started its fifth round of discussion. For the first time, the group is composed of 25 members.

In September 2017, the UN GGE will present its report at the 72nd UN General Assembly. It is likely to address the following issues, among others t: What will replace the UN GGE and become a more permanent mechanism for dealing with global cybersecurity? How can the cybersecurity discussion be made more inclusive beyond the limited number of participating states? The UN GGE report should connect cybersecurity discussions to other non-security issues, such as technological solutions, economic development, and the protection of human rights.

In November 2017, The Global Conference on Cyberspace will be held in Hyderabad, India. It will address cybersecurity issues in a comprehensive way.

Cybersecurity will be on the agenda of at least three high-level events:

• the G7 Summit in Taormina, Italy (26–27 May 2017)
• the G20 Leaders’ Summit in Hamburg, Germany (7–8 July 2017)
• the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Summit in Astana, Kazakhstan (7–8 June 2017).
   

Future updates: Events | Cybersecurity | UN GGE

2. Encryption: security and privacy

The main developments in 2016:

• Apple/FBI case brings privacy, security, encryption, and surveillance into sharper focus
• Tech companies enhance encryption for users

Last year’s Apple/FBI controversy gave rise to many dilemmas surrounding, on the one hand, privacy and users’ rights, and on the other hand, security and the authorities’ responsibility for the safety of citizens. The FBI’s request for Apple to assist in unlocking the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino’s terrorist attackers was not an isolated case.

Although last year’s case was ultimately resolved, the main dilemmas are likely to resurface again this year, given that the industry is likely to continue to be asked to assist in dealing with cybersecurity matters. Sooner or later, stakeholders will need to make tough decisions and find a way to reach compromise. Diplo’s Socratic-style script addresses the complexity of the security versus privacy dilemma, with governments, Internet users, and the Internet industry each having valid arguments for their positions on this issue.

Figure 2. Data interplay

The main players in the encryption controversy are users, governments, and Internet companies (Figure 2). Driven by security considerations, governments are likely to increase pressure on Internet companies to provide backdoor access to users’ data or reduce levels of encryption. Pressure will come not only from US authorities, but also from other governments worldwide. The Internet industry will try to resist. Users’ data is their main commodity, and losing users’ trust may endanger their business model (Figure 3).  In addition, there is an increasing trend to recognise that the right to encrypt may be a derivative right of the basic human rights to privacy and freedom of expression.

Figure 3. Internet business model

In 2017, the Internet industry will also try to avoid ad hoc solutions and aim for more predictable and formal arrangements. New governance arrangements could provide them with more predictable and formalised ways of handling government requests for access to users’ data. Such a move would not be in line with the typical business approach of minimising regulations, in particular international ones.

Public-private partnership could be a compromise arrangement which would ensure the protection of public interest in cybersecurity matters and avoid heavy regulatory pressure on the Internet industry. A potential inspiration could be found in the Montreux process, a public-private partnership aimed at providing international governance of private military and security companies.

The Montreux process construct consists of the Montreux document (2008) signed so far by 54 states, and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Providers (ICoC), a multistakeholder initiative including governments, the private sector, and civil society. The main achievement of ICoC-a is ensuring that the private sector observes international humanitarian law (Geneva conventions) and human rights instruments. The Montreux process’s ‘teeth’ is  the ICoC Association, which provides certification and monitoring of member companies and handles complaints of alleged violations of the code of conduct.

In 2017, the search for an arrangement on access to data for security reasons could lead towards a public-private framework as a compromise between, on the one hand, the current void of international regulations and, on the other hand, a possible international treaty on encryption and access to data.
 

Future updates: Encryption | Privacy and data protection

3. Content policy, fake news, and violent extremism content

The main developments in 2016:

• Initiatives and measures are introduced to combat violent extremism online
• Fake news and filter bubbles make the headlines

Regulating content on the Internet has been always a controversial policy with numerous human rights, political, and economic ramifications. Combating violent extremism online will remain high on the policy agenda in 2017. In addition, social media coverage of the US presidential elections brought into focus the question of ‘fake news’ and, ultimately, content policy of social media platforms.

The controversies start with the effort to define fake news. Dan Kennedy makes a useful distinction between fake and false news.

…fake news is content produced by sites whose sole purpose is to game Facebook’s (and Google’s) algorithms for profit, and is thus a worthy target of eradication efforts. False news, by contrast, is political speech, and the way we deal with falsehoods in this country is to fight it out in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s marketplace of ideas, trusting that the truth will ultimately win out.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg also reacted cautiously:

The problems here are complex, both technically and philosophically. We believe in giving people a voice, which means erring on the side of letting people share what they want whenever possible. We need to be careful not to discourage sharing of opinions or to mistakenly restrict accurate content. We do not want to be arbiters of truth ourselves, but instead rely on our community and trusted third parties.

In 2017, the public debate is likely to centre on two potential approaches. The first is to hold Internet companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, responsible for fake news. Some proposals argue that social networks should enjoy media status, so the Internet platforms would be regulated like newspapers or TV stations. The other approach, discussed at a few IGF 2016 workshops, is to focus more on improving social media literacy, which would help Internet users to validate information and build a more solid public debate space.
 

Future updates: Content policy | Intermediaries

4. Powerful interplay: AI – IoT – Big data

The main developments in 2016:

• DDoS attacks bring IoT security into focus
• Artificial intelligence brings new applications and growing concerns

Figure 4. Interplay between Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things and Big Data

As illustrated in Figure 4, an interplay among three technology sectors – AI, IoT, and big data – is likely to be further strengthened in 2017.

First, AI provides ‘thinking’ for IoT devices and gadgets. It is what transforms cars, for example, from dumb vehicles operated by a driver to intelligent driverless vehicles. As demonstrated at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, USA (5–8 January 2017), AI will empower a wide range of tools from from vacuum cleaners to toothbrushes and even automated personal assistants.

Second, smart devices and the IoT generate a lot of data, sometimes labelled as big data, which is used for data analysis. Insight from data generated by users is the cornerstone of the business model of the major Internet companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter).

Third, the circle is closed by the verification of initial AI algorithms based on user-generated data gathered through smart devices. In addition, data analysis identifies new cognitive patterns that could be integrated into new AI algorithms.

Nils Lenke, a leading scientist in AI and speech recognition, describes the AI-IoT-data cycle as follows:

You need a lot of data covering all kinds of variants of speech accents, dialects, ages, gender, and different settings, different environments. But when cloud-based speech recognition came along, things got a lot better; now, as people use it, we can see that data on our servers. The right data, covering exactly what people are doing with the technology. Not what we thought people might be doing.

The power of this emerging business model is enormous, but it also brings new challenges. It led major Internet companies (IBM, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and DeepMind) to launch the Partnership on Artificial Intelligence initiative, aimed at addressing the privacy, security, and ethical challenges of AI, and initiating a broader societal dialogue on the ethical aspects of new digital developments.

AI, which for many years was a topic of interest mainly for researchers and tech enthusiasts, has started to attract the attention of governments. This trend will continue in 2017, as policymakers try to determine whether existing legislation and regulations can adequately tackle the implications of AI in areas such as the labour market, safety and (cyber)security, and liability and accountability, or whether new policy frameworks are needed.

In a number of cybercrime cases during the last part of 2016, IoT devices were used as instruments in coordinated, large-scale cyber-attacks. Experts also increasingly draw attention to the privacy and data protection implications of IoT devices such as smart toys and home appliances. In 2017, the security and data implications of IoT developments will be in focus for governments and industry (as already requested in the USA and planned by the EU). Possible regulatory solutions could range from standards for IoT devices to regulatory requirements for the security of digital devices.

Future updates: Privacy and data protection | Internet of Things | Convergence

5. Data governance and data localisation

The main developments in 2016:

• Debates on data governance increase after a series of data breaches
• Privacy Shield framework replaces Safe Harbour agreement
• Courts rule on privacy, data protection, and data retention

Figure 5. Interdisciplinary data governance

Data is shaping the new Internet business model. As more data is stored and processed digitally (from e-commerce transactions to health records), and often in the cloud, the governance of this data (i.e., who can collect, store, and process data, and how this can be done) becomes increasingly important. Two trends are likely to dominate data governance in 2017.

First, data governance will need to be addressed in  a more comprehensive way since a solution aimed at one area may directly affect other aspects of data governance (Figure 5). For example, a policy on data in the fight against violent extremism may affect data aspects of human rights (freedom of expression and privacy). Data standards are likely to have an impact on security, economic, and human rights aspects of data governance. The use of big data in various sectors will be the main topic of discussion at the United Nations World Data Forum, to be held 15–18 January, in Cape Town, South Africa.

Second, in 2017 we can expect further pressure on data localisation (a practice which requires service providers and/or the data they store to be located within national borders). The motivations for data localisation include protectionist trade policy, national security considerations, protection of citizens’ privacy, and political-driven filtering.

Data localisation will increase costs for Internet businesses, which will have to find solutions to provide services in a profitable manner, while complying with local policies.
 

Future updates: Privacy and data protection | Technical standards

6. Digital trade and Internet economy

The main developments in 2016:

• Digital revolution fosters economic growth
• Guidelines and rulings further shape the sharing economy
• Companies hit by tax bills and investigations

‘When trade stops, war comes’ is how Jack Ma, chairman of Alibaba, China’s biggest online commerce company, summarised the challenge ahead of us. Digital trade, as an engine of economic growth, could be a way to contain the protectionist wave which is expected in 2017.

As the World Bank’s 2016 World Development Report indicated, the sustainable economic growth of the Internet (including digital trade) will require developing analogue policy solutions in policy areas, such as taxation, consumer protection, and labour rights.

In 2017, digital trade policy will be addressed in various fora worldwide.

For example, digital trade will be high on the agenda of the WTO Ministerial Conference, to be held on 11–14 December 2017, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. WTO negotiations face two major sets of challenges. The first is ensuring that digital trade supports the development agenda in global trade. The second is dealing with non-trade aspects of digital trade, including cybersecurity, data protection, standardisation, and online human rights. The latest China-Pakistan proposals for e-commerce have been viewed as a promising way of reaching a compromise on digital trade negotiations at the WTO.

In the EU, the digital single market is becoming one of the main engines for future integration. In 2017, it may have wider strategic relevance for the EU. Namely, if the EU manages to achieve further harmonisation in the digital field, and consolidates its internal digital market, this may help to reverse the current anti-integration tide in the EU’s policy space. The fact that the EU presidency in 2017 will be held by two small but highly advanced digital countries – Malta and Estonia – could help in developing the digital single market further.
 

Future updates: E-commerce | Taxation | E-money and virtual currencies

7. ICANN after the IANA transition

The main developments in 2016:

• IANA stewardship transition is completed; accountability reform continues

For years, ICANN-related issues have been at the top of the policy agenda. This is not likely to be the case in 2017. The IANA stewardship transition from the US government to the global multistakeholder community has been successfully completed, and it is not likely to be reversed by the incoming administration.

ICANN’s main focus in 2017 will be on the new generic top level domains, which will feature high on the agenda of the three public ICANN meetings to be held over the year: ICANN58, on 11–16 March in Copenhagen, Denmark; ICANN59, on 26–29 June in Johannesburg, South Africa; and ICANN60, on 28 October – 3 November in Abu Dhabi, UAE.

A potential controversy could be triggered by the question of jurisdiction of US courts over ICANN. In particular, jurisdiction could come into focus if ICANN faces many legal challenges in the US courts on issues related to rights and interests of other states and foreign entities (such as the current ‘.africa’ court case).
 

Future updates: The new generic top-level domains | IANA transition and ICANN accountability | Domain Name System | Root zone

8. Digital policy shaped by court decisions

The main developments in 2016:

• Courts rule on privacy, data protection, and data retention
• Court cases tackle intellectual property rights
• Microsoft case delineates extent of jurisdiction

Numerous court rulings on digital issues confirmed our predictions for 2016:

In the search for solutions to their digital problems, Internet users and organisations will increasingly refer to courts. Judges could become de facto rule-makers in the field of digital policy, as was the case with the right to be forgotten.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has already played a prominent role in the rulings on the right to be forgotten, the Safe Harbour framework, and mass surveillance.

This development is likely to accelerate in 2017 with national and regional courts filling digital policy gaps (lack of policy instruments to address policy issues).

In the first half of 2017, the CJEU is expected to issue a ruling on whether Uber should be considered a provider of transportation or a provider of information society services. This ruling will impact the evolution of the new economic model developed by Uber and other platform companies such as Airbnb. If the CJEU decides that Uber provides transportation services, the company will have to obey all rules applied to, for example, taxi companies.

In 2017, it is likely that the ruling on Microsoft by a US Appellate Court will be challenged. This landmark ruling stipulated that US authorities could not use a search warrant to force Microsoft to turn over data stored at the company’s data centre in Dublin, Ireland. The ruling limits the juridical outreach of US courts over US companies with facilities abroad, an increasing practice within the Internet industry. Given the importance of the jurisdiction issue, the ultimate solution for the Microsoft case will have high relevance for future digital policy.

Courts are likely to be busy with digital issues, addressing questions of cybercrime, content removal, role of intermediaries, freedom of expression, protection of personal data, mandatory data retention requirements, and mass surveillance to name a few.
 

Future updates: Jurisdiction | Privacy and data protection | Convergence | Copyright

9. Connecting the dots among digital policy silos

The main developments in 2016:

• SDGs and Internet access permeate digital policy discussions

Policy silos are reducing the effectiveness of digital policy. As the issue of data governance (Trend 5) shows, it is difficult to have an effective policy on data without taking into consideration the technological, security, economic, and human rights aspects. The IoT – previously tackled as a technological and economic issue – received attention for its security vulnerabilities following recent cyber-attacks.  

The most evident need for overcoming policy silos is in the implementation of the SDGs. The Internet as a common element for all SDGs could also play an important role in connecting the dots among various SDGs.

In 2017, many activities will focus on mapping common elements and identifying ‘boundary spanners’ that will create linkages between different policy silos. The CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation addresses Internet public policy issues, including how to address them in more comprehensive ways. The next meeting of the Working Group is scheduled for 26–27 January, in Geneva, Switzerland.

The interlinkages among digital policy issues and various SDGs will be one of topics at the second Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals, on 15–16 May in New York, USA; at the WSIS Forum, on 12–16 June in Geneva, Switzerland; and at the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, on 10–19 July, also in New York, USA. The WTO Public Forum, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland on 26–28 September, will most likely address Internet-related topics at their intersection with trade and commerce. At the end of the year, the 12th IGF meeting will feature many discussions underlining the interconnections between the various Internet governance and digital policy issues.

Future updates: SDGs and the Internet | IGF

10. Digital realpolitik: from values to interests

In 2017, the digital sphere will be affected by a global shift to realpolitik. It will inevitably bring a higher focus on interests and power considerations rather than values. In the digital realm, where values have played a vital role since the early days of the Internet, realpolitik could trigger several major consequences.

First, it may politicise issues dealing predominantly with technical aspects such as digital standards. If the issues that could be addressed by technical experts become part of realpolitik negotiations, this could restrict innovation and the future growth of technology.

Second, realpolitik may challenge the inclusiveness principle that has been introduced in the digital policy ecosystem over the past few decades, starting with Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and followed by ICANN and the IGF. Realpolitik is often conducted in close diplomatic circles and, sometimes, business circles with limited participation of other actors.

Third, digital realpolitik – with its shift from values to interests – may reduce the importance of human rights and common goods considerations.

Fourth, realpolitik may create a shift from global discussions towards bilateral deals and plurilateral arrangements. This trend is already noticeable in the area of cybersecurity, where the last two years saw a fast growth in bilateral agreements (Figure 6) and plurilateral arrangements (e.g. G20 economic espionage agreement). This trend could lead towards less inclusive global digital policy. Developing countries and marginalised communities worldwide would be at risk of being left out of digital policy shaping and making.

Figure 6. Rise in bilateral cyber agreements

On the positive side, realpolitik may deflate digital policy bubbles and provide a more realistic picture of interests and risks as well as winners and losers resulting from technological developments. In this way, realpolitik may contribute towards creating the basis for more solid and sustainable technological development.  
 

C. Next steps and upcoming main events

The 10 trends listed for 2017 relate to 43 digital policy issues addressed by numerous actors in hundreds of events.

Each of the 43 policy issues has its own ecosystem with its own actors, language, and specific professional culture. Some policy issues such as cybersecurity are further diversifying with a focus on national security, protection of critical infrastructure, and anti-terrorism to name a few.

The most comprehensive approach to both the 10 trends and the 43 issues will be at the following main events.

The WSIS Forum (Geneva, Switzerland, 12–16 June) will have a predominant development focus, building the agenda around the main WSIS action lines (access, health, education, etc.).

The WTO Public Forum (Geneva, Switzerland, 26–28 September) is likely to bring into focus various digital aspects that can affect digital trade (cybersecurity, standardisation, human rights, jurisdiction).

The Global Conference on Cyberspace (Hyderabad, India, October) will address a broad set of digital issues through a cybersecurity perspective.

The World Internet Conference (Wuzhen, China) has a broad agenda with the main focus on linking Chinese and global digital policy players.

The Internet Governance Forum (Geneva, Switzerland, 18–21 December) will conclude an intensive digital policy year with comprehensive and interdisciplinary coverage of digital policy issues at more than 150 workshops and events.

In 2017, the GIP Digital Watch observatory will provide comprehensive coverage of these and other major events. Monthly GIP briefings on the last Tuesday in the month will provide regular updates on the progress in digital policy field. Register and join us for the next monthly briefing, on 31 January 2017.