Delegates at UNESCO delivered several INCREDIBLE speeches and behaved HILARIOUSLY. Let’s see what they said and how they suffered during these days!

“We’re way better than others,” said the delegate of Panama. It seemed that he had FIRM confidence that their bloc would win eventually. Being too confident isn’t a good sign of the success they imagined :) However, we still hold a positive attitude toward them.

“They’re forcing me……. They’re looking at me again…. Ahhh, ” the US delegate cried. The bloc of US includes Bhutan and Mexico. They believe that they can survive through the conference without integrating with the bloc of the EU.

“That doesn’t make any sense.” This is the first, which is also the last, time that the Panama delegate tended to integrate with Egypt's bloc(China’s bloc). We all know that the bloc of Panama proposed solutions totally different from that of China. Therefore, it’s impossible for this combination and DOESN’T make any sense.

We all know that these days are extremely cold and frozen. However, our French delegate just wore a shirt running all around the conference. We have to say that it’s really a brave decision. Moreover, he was so immersive in the conference that he forgot his glasses were still ON HIS HEAD when delivering a speech on the stage.

The discussion on the aspect of education or any other topic they wanted to discuss barely succeeded since they only have 7 countries in their bloc. We found that the Egypt delegate was gradually losing her enthusiasm since the committee

It was quite unfortunate that Argentina’s double delegate has disappeared since the second day of the conference. From that day on, the left Argentina delegate was always sitting at his seat alone when other delegates were actively discussing the UNMOD. Who can talk to him!!!

Every time delegates were raising the placards, it seemed that they were so unsure about their decision. Therefore, the chair had to remind delegates to raise it high and firm. PLEASE delegates, we were in a big meeting room. Put yourself in the shoes of the chairs and you’ll know that not raising high and firm REALLY suffered the chairs.

Moreover, we also know that the chair was a little bit fierce and talked in a clinical tone, which made the entire room quite …… COLD :)

Does anyone know that the delegates of the Russian Federation have a totally identical name? We believe that the chances of happening this are so small; however, it indeed happened in our committee. So cool!!!

At Delegate Night, the delegates of Mexico, Egypt and Togo were playing exciting games together. In one of the games, they were playing “Teacher Say.” One of the instructions was lifting up your left leg, and then, to their surprise, the instructor just walked away to drink water. Simultaneously, their legs were still lifting up. For the sake of accomplishing the games, these delegates struggled to keep their legs up!

To every surprise, Draft Resolution 1.2, which was sponsored by China, was passed in the last session of the meeting.

As we mentioned several times in the previous news report, China’s bloc only had 7 countries in their position at first. However, these countries stuck to their stances firmly during the three-day conference. They proposed a reorder before voting on the DR, and it dramatically passed.

Following on to the voting procedure, with 6 yes, 3 no and 16 abstain, the Draft Resolution 1.2 passed?! What a ridiculous percentage of abstain. It seemed that the bloc, not promising and influential enough, eventually contributed to their success!

We found REALLY ridiculous clauses in Draft Resolution 1.1, which was proposed by the delegate of the EU, France, and Panama.

“Spreading the data system globally.” This is what they wrote in their Draft Resolution. Seriously? These countries are trying to expose users’ personal information to ALL the people? Globally? We totally don’t understand the motivation for the solution. Are they trying to solve the problem or just producing more problems?

“Discussed the policy after it passed.” We believe that delegates in the UNESCO should finish discussing in the academic session. If these countries are trying to discuss it AFTER the formal conference, what is the purpose of holding this conference? We believe that three days including seven sessions and six so far from now should be enough for delegates to discuss many aspects of the issue.

We must say the solution these countries eventually put on the DR is really disappointing. The public will definitely suspect the efficiency of the three-day conference.

In the afternoon session, barely ZERO progress happened again since the delegates were always discussing which countries supported them and which countries didn’t support them. However, they still believed that they had discussed issues such as border security, but we were convinced that there should be more discussion in TWO academic sessions.

At first, the UK and US were an independent bloc different from the bloc of Panama and the other bloc of China. However, the UK and Panama integrated their bloc into a HUGE one in order to make one draft resolution pass. We strongly condemned this since they were not even putting the benefits of the public in the first place.

However, it eventually ended in a dramatic way. The EU delegate wanted the UK to reconsider the decision to integrate with them because their stances might oppose each other. Then, they were trying to take the UK’s bloc back just when the UK decided to leave them.

This is not a place for them to make friends and deal with those RELATION problems. Countries should stick more firmly to their stances and stop swinging back and forth.

In the previous speech, the Russian Federation mentioned that the application of facial recognition shouldn’t stop just for the reason of ethical problems. Yet, he still mentioned that human rights were also important to them. Didn’t these two speaking counter? They ignored the problems happening at that time, which meant that they ignored the suffering citizens.

“Some human rights can be sacrificed to make the country progress,” the Russian Federation declared. How could this kind of government dominate their countries, not even considering their people? What’s more absurd, this is what a government said during an international conference. We strongly doomed the country which is neglecting human rights.

The delegates of China and Egypt were always trying to advocate a new topic about education, finding more possibilities for the solutions to the problems of FRT. However, the committee never succeeded in passing any motions about education. We believe that education is an important long-term solution to the issue. Education is always an approach of essence that can enhance future generations to have a more comprehensive understanding of facial recognition.

“We think there are many important issues that should be discussed,” the Egypt delegate said sincerely. We hope that the discussion can BE EXPANDED so that we can ensure a better future for facial recognition technology.

The problems are not that countries are on which sides but how to solve the problems resulting from facial recognition. It seems that the committee spent the entire day discussing biometric problems and transparency but a lot about whether to integrate the potential draft resolution or not. These countries aren’t giving enough constructive solutions to handle the problems. We are quite disappointed with the WHOLE discussion at UNESCO.

We hope that there will be MORE discussion tomorrow so that users can have safer and more immersive experiences, which we have been mentioning.

In the morning session, discussions in UNESCO mainly focus on the solution to biometric problems and transparency. It seems that the committee has gone on the right path.

Many countries are pursuing the law enforcement of facial recognition technology, including New Zealand and Bhutan. We’re convinced that there should be several motives and reasons why they’re trying to promote this solution. However, it seems that countries didn’t even know why they were doing so. This should happen during the meeting since the solutions may influence some countries’ policy. Moreover, the resolution of law enforcement isn’t forcible. Whether countries are going to implement the regulations has no way out.

At the very beginning of the session, the Togo delegate talks about receiving funds from developed countries to strengthen the protection of personal privacy. However, the countries didn’t even think about what to give to the developed countries. Countries didn’t have a fully comprehensive understanding of their proposal. We highly condemn the happening of this problem because this will make the whole discussion process even harder to push on.

The delegates of Togo apologized for his ambiguous response. He assured that he would think more about the funds proposal in the later session. We’re looking forward to his more profound perspectives, hoping to see them in the session afterward.

The delegate of Panama, the European Union, and France had proposed to add a third party to enhance transparency. However, we believed that adding a “third party” might expose personal information to MORE individuals, thus putting the safety of the public in a more dangerous condition.

These delegates later proposed that it’ll be a non-governmental organization (NGO) instead of an enterprise to be in charge of it. They believed that involving a credit and reliable third party is effective in solving the problems of transparency and secure personal data.

In the first session on the second day of the meeting, it seems that the delegates had a good opening. However, we still have that the committee could discuss more about other aspects, such as education and more long-term solutions, to cope with the thorny situation now. The public and the countries will also be more accepting of the resolution that UNESCO put forward.

Countries’ discussion on facial recognition in UNESCO mainly focuses on the problem of inaccuracy. However, it was totally a disaster.

As we all know, the United States(US) is the leader of democratic countries. However, from the very first session, they have an extreme implicit stance, not even being able to answer the question from the delegates of Panama and France. We believe that if the US doesn't declare its position as soon as possible, the whole conference won’t be able to move on smoothly. What’s worse, the “small countries” won’t know what to follow. We believe that only when the US sticks to its principles can the meeting move on to the next worth discussing issue.

At the beginning of the conference, Panama strongly believed that they were going to collaborate with the European Union and hence stood on the same side as the EU, which is strongly against the policy of China. However, we found out that Panama is actually using China’s monitoring devices in their own territories. Isn’t it quite weird? At the end of session 2, it seems that Panama has realized that it should be in the same position as China and has been trying to get on the right path. We hope that they’ll be able to stand in a right and clear position.

It seems that the delegate in UNESCO isn’t willing to have an open debate on the content of the working paper. We found that they spend an entire session distributing the bloc and clarifying the position. However, in session 2, there came back to unmod to clarify Countries’ position AGAIN.

Countries just keep restating their state but barely talk about exact solutions. We believe that the purpose of the conference is to reach a consensus and enhance a better and safer user experience of this advanced technology.

If they’re not going to discuss further information and talk more, we’re afraid that the public might eventually be disappointed about the result. In other words, countries might not reach a consensus at the end of the conference.

Anonymous Comment