User:Ehinomence/Technology governance

Technology Governance
Technology governance means the governance, i.e., the steering between the different sectors&#x2014;state, business, and NGOs&#x2014;of the development of technology. It is the idea of governance within technology and its use, as well as the practices behind them. The concept is based on the notion of innovation and of techno-economic paradigm shifts according to the theories of Joseph A. Schumpeter, Christopher Freeman, Carlota Perez, etc. The thought is that sure periods in economic development are commanded by a worldview driving innovation that impacts through finance components, hierarchical change, more prominent returns, and so forth. Likewise, the financial and social circle to such a degree, that a whole paradigm is begat by them. Right now, that worldview driving innovation is information and communications technology (ICT) that we use on a day to day basis, and has grown exponentially over the past years. As per Development Hypothesis (and exact discoveries also), states, areas, or different networks don't consequently advance, or even go into, these key innovations, but instead should be guided there by dynamic intervention, by the State part (in close collaboration and coordination). Innovation administration, (as a field of insightful request and scholastic guidance) is hence about how this is hypothetically and essentially done. It is about which institutions are ideal for such a scene, and how the education of administrators need to be presented on the off chance that they will have the authoritative ability to manage such issues, and so on. Technology governance is a public policy concept; a humanitarian setting allows for control and cared to subjects by creating a safer environment while reducing the harm that can be caused by them. Without the governance behind technology, redundant solutions are common to occur, creating a rise of complexity and issues, as well as a potential increase in cost, and compromising future investments for innovations. There is a fine line between technology governance and its alternative, IT governance. It is not to be confused with inner-corporate arrangements of organization (corporate governance) and IT arrangements, sometimes called "Information Technology Governance" or Corporate governance of information technology. The difference between them is IT governance influences the governance around firm performance and information systems whereas technology governance is with technology itself and adapting with it.

Organizations that can establish procedures and structures on public policies based on decision-making principles are at the heart of technology governance. It's a way to get people involved in these groups and allow all levels of government officials to participate. Technology governance serves as a mediator between technological innovation and the controversies that surround it. Technology governance creates a balance between the political and social implications brought from new technology innovations.

Importance
In current times, technological advancement yields, sometimes, unforeseeable advances in intelligence. It brings a new sense of innovation in universal efficiency, and increased convenience. These advances also come with potential harm and threats to an unregulated cyber, and data space. Compliance can be breached, technology can be used to harm, and disinformation can negatively affect media while also being a potential interference in governmental/political elections. Technology governance aims to regulate that space which allows for a rather smooth evolution of technology as a whole. NGO's, committees, and unions have dedicated their efforts to the idea of technology governance as advancements become more complex and complicated. Groups like the GSCA, IGC, TTC, and the IFI divide their attention to the demand of technology governance, as well as advocate for its further presence when technological advances are made. They aim to achieve a regulated space for evolution to run its course in the tech world, free from disinformation, malpractice in use of technology, and rules/laws broken.

Examples
Technology innovation has a lot of beneficial effects and benefits, but it also has a lot of harmful consequences and benefits. It aids in the discovery and management of the risks and rewards associated with technology. A recurrent pattern in these breakthroughs is a shift in the industry, as well as the contentious disputes that surround them.


 * 1) Artificial Intelligence
 * 2) Nuclear Power
 * 3) Gene Editing
 * 4) Social Media

Barriers
Effective technology governance will involve collective action from various sectors to manage the development of breakthrough technologies. With the boundary-crossing nature of emerging technology, the need for collaborative policy-making architecture is paramount to adapt to the speed of technological change and address the variety of issues associated with introducing new technologies within our shared digital infrastructure. The challenge of a collaborative policy-making architecture within governance is the inherent need for trust and cooperation among diverse stakeholder groups between innovations.

Among some of the barriers for governance, we see a well-known puzzle; the Collingridge dilemma, holding that early in the innovation process — when interventions and course corrections might still prove easy and cheap — the full consequences of the technology and hence the need for change might not be fully apparent. The Collingridge dilemma can be described as one of the main underlying problems within the governance of emerging technologies. With new technologies like Artificial Intelligence, the implications of introducing and applying this within our digital infrastructure could prove to be dangerous and unknown. Another example is neurotechnology, with embedded devices and brain-computer interfaces that challenge existing safety and efficacy regimes and may fail to consider the potential long-term ethical questions of protecting the human agency and mental privacy. In the opportunity that the need for intervention within an innovation becomes clear, changing the course to align with a collaborative policy could become expensive, complex, and time-consuming. This uncertainty and unknowingness with emerging technology make the challenges within “opening up” or “closing down” development trajectories the central focus of governance debates between sectors.

Public acceptance introduces another aspect of challenges for technology governance. The resistance from the general acceptance within emerging innovations can fall under fundamental value conflicts, distributive concerns, or even failures of trust in governing institutions such as regulatory authorities and bodies giving technical advice3. The opposition of public acceptance will require “anticipatory governance,” an approach that uses participatory forms of foresight and technology assessment to work towards achieving desired future outcomes and focuses on engaging stakeholders in communicative processes with particular links to policy. Within anticipatory governance and the confines of the so-called Collingridge dilemma, we envision building three capacities: anticipation or foresight; integration across disciplines; and public engagement.

Science Technology and Innovation Policy (STI)
Many organizations in the United States and even around the world adopt the STI policy to foster discoveries. It is designed for the economy to increase the public's understanding of science, technology, and innovation while simultaneously promoting the research that underpins them and allowing individuals and businesses to grow. The policy aids technology governance organizations to execute their goal and maintain a balance.

Bureaus
1. Office of Science and Technology Cooperation (STC): Science, technology, and innovation (STI) ecosystems are used by STC, which is part of the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES), to support US foreign and economic policy agendas. STC's role is to defend and support foreign policy advancement and the creation of new interests.

2. Office of the Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State (STAS): STAS is a focal point for integrating science, technology, and innovation into US foreign policy. The goal is to increase science while ensuring foreign policy security.

3. Office of Space Affairs (SA): The SA's role is to carry out diplomatic initiatives in order to strengthen American leadership in space technology and other areas. By teaching and comprehending the support for US national space policies and initiatives, these affairs include space exploration, applications, and commercialization. The idea is to promote international usage of American space capabilities, systems, and services while also encountering new discoveries and innovations.

Global Technology Governance Summit 2021
This summit was first hosted in Japan in April 2021 by the World Economic Forum in collaboration with the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Network (C4IR). The Global Technology Governance Summit has goals of becoming the leading authority on technology governance of emerging technologies by ensuring public-private collaboration. The topics covered include industry and government transformation along with technology governance and cutting edge technologies. The summit was co-chaired by various industry professional and educators such as YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, and president of Imperial College London Alice Gast.

The Global Technology Governance Report 2021 was one of the reports released by the World Economic Forum during the summit. This report takes a look at how Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) technology is being used in a post-pandemic environment and their governance gaps. This report focuses on five specific technologies of 4IR: artificial intelligence, blockchain, Internet of Things, drones, and mobility.

Internet Governance Institute (IGI)
IGI is a NGO which is focused on promoting and researching Internet Governance in the Asia Pacific region. The organization consists of a small advisory group and a leadership team, collaborating to help bring together people and share resources. There is a large educational component to IGI, as they not only conduct research and development in Internet Governance topics, but also design courses and lectures to educate the public on internet governance related topics. The Institutes school offers a diploma on Internet Governance and is obtained through the completion of a 16 week course and a week long residential graduation program. Its most recent report is the Nepal IGF 2018 Report. In 2019, the IGI collaborated with various organizations such as the Internet Society of Nepal and ISOC Nepal to host the third Nepal IGF under the theme of "One World, One Internet, One Vision".

The IGI executive team is currently led by Chairman Manohar Kumar Bhattarai, who is involved with IT Policy in Nepal and has over three decades of experience in the Information and Communication Technology sector. Bhattarai is supported by six other Directors on the executive board: Upendra Keshari Neupane, Rajendra Dahal, Umesh Raghubanshi, Roshan Pokharel, Sapana Shahi, and Babu Ram Aryal who also serves as the CEO. In addition, Ananda Gautam serves as the Institutes program and policy officer.

G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance (GSCA)
The GSCA is a global alliance that brings together municipal, regional and national governments, private-sector partners, and cities’ residents through a collective understanding of smart city technologies’ responsible and ethical use. This Alliance will facilitate and advance global policy norms to help accelerate the use of conscientious practices, mitigate potential risks, and engage in openness to establish public trust. The GSCA recently released Governing Smart Cities, a roadmap that provides cities with a benchmark to gauge the current policies for smart cities technologies, mainly concerning ICT accessibility, privacy impact assessment, cyber accountability, digital infrastructure, and open data the ethical and responsible governance.

International Grand Committee (IGC)
The IGC is a board of global political members who meet to discuss the governance of certain specified information in technology. They aim to detect and filter out misinformation, hate-speech, and electoral interference. The committee was drafted at a meeting in Washington D.C which aimed it's attention on the transmission of rapid fake news platforms, discrimination, hate-speech, and the electoral interference that comes with it. After a successful compromise, the group graduated to grand committee status on November, 27, 2018. Since it's cultivation, the IGC has added a knowledgeable and influential board to represent and consult twenty-one different nations. The team comprises of Ministers, Journalists, Technology Executives, and many more specialists.The committee is currently headed by chairman Bob Zimmer, followed by vice chairs, Charlie Agnus and Nathanial Erskine-Smith. Their members include Frank Baylis, Mona Fortier, Jacques Gourde, Hon. Peter Kent, Michel Picard, Raj Saini, Anita Vandenbeld. These team members as well as others, hold high governmental status that include the House of Commons of Canada and the United Kingdom's parliament.

On May, 28th, 2019, the IGC took its aim at big social media platforms, Facebook and Twitter, in a scheduled hearing. They targeted the platforms questionable methods of distributing, and recycling information to their users in the light that it may be maliciously affecting social spaces while also being a hub for electoral and governmental interferences. The platforms agreed with the committee that their users should be protected, and their information distribution should be democracy based but regulated at the same time. CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, and COO, Sheryl Sandberg, of Facebook, were supposed to attend following hearings to discuss technology governance with the IGC as part of their verbal agreement on issues with the platform, but they skipped attendance.The IGC will attempt to send out a summons to appear at another hearing as a consolation for representing the vast pool of Facebook users.

U.S.-E.U. Trade and Technology Council (TTC)
The TTC is a council formed between the United States of America and the European Union. The council’s main objective is to promote U.S. and EU competitiveness and prosperity and the spread of democratic, market-oriented values by increasing transatlantic trade and investment products and services of emerging technology, strengthening our technological and industrial leadership, boosting innovation, and protecting and promoting critical and emerging technologies and infrastructure. The council plans to cooperate on the development and deployment of new technologies based on shared democratic values of the U.S. and EU, including respect for human rights, that encourage compatible standards and regulations. The TTC was formed at the United States-European Union (EU) Summit in June 2021 and was announced by U.S. President Biden, European Commission President von der Leyen, and European Council President Charles Michel.

University of Tokyo Institute for Future Initiatives
The Institute for Future Initiatives is an organization created in 2019 as a combination of the Policy Alternatives Research Institute (PARI) and the UTIAS Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science (IR3S). IFI focuses on developing recommendations for social and policy issues for a future world. Their technology Governance Policy Research Unit has completed an artificial intelligence (AI) governance project looking at various implications of AI technology and how to manage them. The Institute is headed by director Hideaki Shiroyama and vice directors Toshiya Watanabe, Kensuke Fukushi, and Ichiro Sakata.