Fwd: [DC] IGF 2026 Call for Internet Governance Lab Proposals

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

Dear Colleagues,

open question: is this something which the DC-CIV would be suited to address?
Kindest regards,

Olivier

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	[DC] IGF 2026 Call for Internet Governance Lab Proposals
Date:	Thu, 20 Aug 2026 16:49:40 +0200
From:	Markus Kummer via DC <d...@intgovforum.org>
Reply-To:	Markus Kummer <kummer...@gmail.com>
To:	dc <d...@intgovforum.org>

Dear all,

You may have noticed the call for submissions on the IGF website:

This project was discussed at the MAG meeting in Nairobi and then in two MAG calls in early August and yesterday. The main thrust of the call is for  "practical governance proposals addressing concrete challenges arising from the impact of AI on the Internet's architecture, operation, use, openness and governance.”  There were many questions on the MAG list and many issues are still open. 

The concept paper calls for input from all components of the IGF ecosystem. The point was made by some MAG members that it was unlikely that the PNs would be able to make any substantive contributions, given the very short deadline  of 15 September. I recalled that the DCs would be able to rely on a body of substantive work and could therefore be a natural partner for the IG Labs.

Please look at the call for submission. At this stage you need to fill in the IG Lab application form and submit an initial proposal not exceeding 1,000 words. As you all have worked on related issues I hope you can respond to the call and thus illustrated the valid contribution of the DCs to the IGF annual meeting.

We will put this issue on the agenda of our next call and the Secretariat will be ready to answer any question you may have.

Best regards

Markus

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

Dear Olivier,

One of the primary concerns regarding Artificial Intelligence is the propensity of the technology to transition beyond human control. The IGF has examined the prospects and threats of A.I. as an emerging technology; the Policy Network on AI (PNAI) continues its intersessional work. However it is a matter of core concern for DC-CIV, hence we might seek to update IGF's observations in light of recent, critical developments.

Here are two presentations raise significant concerns:

AI agents have autonomously broken out of sandboxes to infiltrate infrastructure and attempted data theft without human intervention.  https://youtu.be/87DyyMV0kCY?si=mfnWG0zmW1EbFRUC

The risk of autonomous actions is far more severe than previously estimated, suggesting these are not short-lived accidents but an emerging pattern that demonstrate A.I.'s poetential to coordinate, break away and find its own way around  https://youtu.be/INpVD65s8mA?si=3V4aXjd2jg2dtBlz

These incidents represent only the security dimension of A.I., there are other dimensions of concens, and at the same time, A.I.'s potential for good is also incalculably immense. 

The DC-CIV could propose a Lab to evaluate these increasing risks against A.I.'s potential for greater good. This Lab could explore an alternative development-deployment model: rather than deploying A.I. at commercial speeds as a commerical technology, more like standard web applications, in ROI enhancing models,  we might consider "barricaded deployments" wherein the experimental A.I systems are closely held in ultra-safe, truly isolated (very, very carefully barricaded) environments until their implications are fully understood, while selectively making use of A.I technologies to address those developmental challenges that are more swiftly addressed with A.I. help. Even the current deployment could be cautiously slowed down for a while. This cautious model is in the nature of temporarily and partially amplifying human oversight over the A.I. till such time as we undestand A.I. better.  It may present macro economic challenges to alter the course of progress, but the global economic order is cerainly equipped to make such change in approach, should the IGF eventually recommend such a caution.

I propose that the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values (DC-CIV) respond to the IGF 2026 Call for Internet Governance Lab Proposals with a proposal drafted around, and improved upon the above.

Thank you.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "coreinternetvalues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to coreinternetval...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/coreinternetvalues/5064dd9c-be1c-4759-96b5-2175d06acef7%40gih.com.

--

Sivasubramanian M

Nameshop

India.

Inte...@nameshop.in

[Alejandro Pisanty]

Sounds like "sandboxes", in which way isn't it that? 

Also how is it specific to core values? We can make it so by exploring the effects of at least one, "ceteris paribus" (keeping all other variables constant); so, what are the effects of the AI events you mention on, or from, say, interoperability? can a response to some of these risks affect Internet interoperability in a negative way? or does interoperability actually enhance the response more than it does enhance the risk? 

This kind of more focused question may help define an approach. Is anyone else interested in developing the idea further and make it into a project we can present? 

Alejandro Pisanty

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/coreinternetvalues/CAB%2Bxu1HcfjXJNP%2BTadTEeRpXJOm1PN76z4%3DdOCzkvh2DNwYXJQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .