Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Tony Blair Institute: “Modern states increasingly depend on digital infrastructure that is both critical and physically vulnerable. Identity systems, registries, payments, legal records, administrative platforms and public-service channels now form part of the state’s operational core. When these systems fail, the issue is not only service disruption, but also the continuity and credibility of government itself.

War, cyber-attacks, sabotage, terrorism and natural disasters can all affect the systems on which governments, economies and public services rely. Artificial intelligence intensifies this challenge. Governments will increasingly depend on concentrated, capital-intensive infrastructure – cloud, compute, energy, connectivity, secure data environments – that many states cannot fully build, finance or control domestically. As a result, the question is no longer whether states will depend on infrastructure beyond their borders, but how that dependence can be governed.

One concept attracting growing attention as a potential solution to these challenges is the digital embassy – a legally, technically and politically governed arrangement that allows states to preserve, restore or operate critical digital functions through trusted infrastructure beyond their territory. Building on the earlier data-embassy model, which focused on legally protected cross-border storage and recovery of critical state data and systems, digital embassies go even further. They can provide live-system continuity, service continuity and, in some cases, trusted access to cloud, compute or AI infrastructure. At their most advanced, digital embassies are designed to preserve the operational capacity of the state – including identification, authentication, access to records, legal administrative processes and communication with citizens – even when domestic infrastructure or normal administration is disrupted.

This paper argues that digital embassies should be understood as strategic instruments for resilience, security, sovereignty and capability. For guest states (those seeking to externalise elements of their sovereign digital infrastructure), they can reduce single points of failure, preserve state continuity and provide access to strategic infrastructure. For host states (those aiming to host such systems for other countries), they can attract investment, strengthen the economy, aggregate demand for cloud and compute, deepen strategic partnerships, and position countries within the emerging global digital and AI infrastructure ecosystem. But hosting also creates political, legal and security exposure, and therefore requires credible safeguards and institutional capacity…(More)”.

Report by Oliver Escobar and Stephen Elstub: “Democratic wellbeing means people having voice and choice over decisions that affect their lives. Strengthening parliamentary democracy is essential for improving democratic wellbeing in the UK. This paper supports current efforts to enhance the UK’s four parliaments through deeper public engagement and citizen deliberation. Building a stronger working relationship between parliamentarians and citizens can increase institutional capacity to address the challenges of our time.

Parliaments are expected to navigate complex, long-term and often contentious policy challenges, while maintaining public trust and demonstrating responsiveness to citizens. Yet existing mechanisms for engaging the public in parliamentary policymaking – consultations, surveys, lobbying – often struggle to provide the kind of considered public judgement these challenges require

Why mini-publics?

We focus on mini-publics because they provide a robust and practical way to embed citizen deliberation in legislatures. Mini-publics are civic forums in which a diverse cross-section of the public participates in evidence-based deliberation to inform decision-making. Participants are selected through civic lottery to reflect the wider population and supported with resources to reduce barriers to participation…(More)”.

Book by Keith McCandless and Nancy White: “Liberating Structures (LS) are simple patterns that make it possible for individuals and groups to work together brilliantly. With a menu of 43+ open-source patterns, LS shift how people meet, plan, decide, and relate to one another, making it possible to include and engage many voices in shaping next steps and the future. LS Their minimal set of structural constraints to set groups free from conventional patterns that exclude, stifle, and over-control (like endless presentations, managed discussions, or unfocused brainstorming)…What’s New: Inside the Fieldbook

Sparkling New Visuals: Every structure features a sharp visual format and simple line drawings, making the microstructures and templates easy to follow, adapt, and share.

Expanded Repertoire: The LS menu has grown to 43 methods, introducing ten new, second-generation Liberating Structures to tackle modern challenges.

Integrated Online Practice: No more fragmented guides. Practical, field-tested instructions for both online and face-to-face facilitation are now embedded directly within every single structure.

Inclusive Design & Continuity: Learn how to co-design with your group. Master the art of composing strings, using short punctuations, and tracking multi-session progress with your participants, lifting off precisely where you left off.

The Deeper Why: We shine a brighter light on the 10 LS Principles and the complexity science concepts that underpin the repertoire—helping you bridge the gap between your espoused values and routine habits…(More)”

Article by Tony Oweke: “The United Nations’ Global Dialogue on AI Governance—born out of the 2024 Global Digital Compact (GDC) and parallel UN negotiations that also produced an Independent International Scientific Panel on AI—will convene this July in Geneva. The Dialogue arrives amid a broader proliferation: a growing ecosystem of international AI summits, including in Bletchley Park, Seoul, Paris, and New Delhi, that are attempting to shape the global governance landscape. Whether these attempts are coalescing into something coherent, however, remains to be seen.

The 2023 Bletchley Declaration generated a shared international vocabulary around frontier-AI risk and established AI safety as a matter for coordinated global action. It also catalyzed the AI Safety Institute to publish an evaluation of advanced AI systems’ capabilities and risks in its annual report. The highlight of the 2024 summit in Seoul was a commitment to establish a network of AI safety institutes spanning ten countries and the European Union (EU). The 2025 summit in Paris marked a shift away from safety and toward investment and adoption, underlined by several funding pledges and deals. India’s 2026 summit, by contrast, sought to center voices from the Global South in AI governance. And early indications are that the 2027 summit in Switzerland will again focus on safety and security.

Taken together, these summits have succeeded in mobilizing political attention and resources, but they have struggled to translate high-level commitments into coordinated, durable governance outcomes…(More)”.

Playbook by Eric Hysen: “…evaluates the risks and benefits of governmental adoption of artificial intelligence (AI). The paper offers a comprehensive analysis of public-sector AI governance, from its systems and frameworks to approaches and policies, as well as a shifting federal emphasis on the speed of adoption and on reducing regulatory burden. Drawing on a comparative literature review and interviews, this pragmatic playbook guides leaders in building and implementing AI governance in public-sector organizations to ensure AI is safe, ethical, secure, and aligned with mission and values…(More)”

Book edited by Katja Mayer, Astrid Mager and Renée Ridgway: “This volume examines how openness is designed, governed, contested and lived in contemporary digital knowledge infrastructures. From open source software and internet standards, to citizen science platforms, public sector data systems and alternative computing practices, the book shows that infrastructures are never neutral technical backbones. They are deeply political arrangements that embed values, distribute power and shape whose knowledge counts.

Bringing together scholars from science and technology studies, critical data studies, media studies, organisation studies, arts-based research and political sociology, this edited volume explores openness as an ongoing socio-technical process rather than a fixed ideal. The book moves from the partial openness of early Internet standards and free and open source software, through contested practices of opening government data and public infrastructures, to struggles over inclusion and governance in scholarly and cultural knowledge infrastructures. This is followed by community-driven experiments in care, repair and alternative openness and concludes with forward-looking contributions on how to keep infrastructures open for research, how to fund infrastructures as digital commons and how to mobilise open infrastructures for democratic resilience and economic sovereignty.

The contributions trace how principles such as accessibility, transparency, participation and collective stewardship are enacted in practice—and how they are challenged by commercial capture, asymmetries of expertise, cultural governance and geopolitical inequalities. Across theoretical chapters and rich empirical case studies, the book investigates the governance of open infrastructures, the politics of alternative technological arrangements and struggles for epistemic justice within knowledge systems.

By foregrounding power relations, ethical tensions and questions of responsibility, this book rethinks openness as a site of political negotiation rather than a technical solution. The volume offers critical insights for researchers, policymakers, engineers and civil society actors concerned with digital commons, democratic governance and the future of open knowledge infrastructures in increasingly contested political and technical environments.

A companion website, www.openinfrastructures.net , extends the volume through author interviews, supplementary materials and additional resources that document the making of the book and provide further insights into the debates on governing, sustaining, and contesting open digital knowledge infrastructures…(More)”.

Report by the Congressional Research Service (US): “Over many decades, Congress has legislated policies to provide federal data to different types of users for a variety of purposes or “use cases.” From constituents seeking to learn more about the functions of their representative government to researchers seeking authoritative data for ongoing work, Data.gov is the latest effort in a series of initiatives addressing ongoing debates about how the public may access government data.

Through administrative initiatives beginning in 2009 and implementation of the Open, Public, Electronic, and Necessary Government Data Act (OPEN Government Data Act; P.L. 115-435, Title II) from 2019 to the present, Data.gov has operated primarily as a directory to certain kinds of government-held information. The General Services Administration administers Data.gov’s day-to-day operations, while the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) effectively exercises control over the website’s implementation and develops related guidance for agencies. Data.gov hosts the federal data catalog, which lists information about many agency data assets and provides means to access some of them. However, Data.gov does not typically serve as a repository for the underlying data assets themselves; rather, it is characterized in law as “a single public interface online as a point of entry” that directs users to data assets hosted elsewhere, such as on individual agency websites.

The OPEN Government Data Act defines data as “recorded information” and data asset as “a collection of data elements or data sets that may be grouped together.” However, OMB’s definition from implementation guidance in Memorandum M-25-05 interpreted the act’s definition of the term data asset more narrowly to mean data that are both structured (e.g., organized into columns and rows and a database of digital images) and logically grouped (e.g., with a shared function or purpose). These definitions and others contained in the statute may permit agencies a level of discretion in determining which data assets are included and which are excluded from Data.gov’s federal data catalog. The OPEN Government Data Act differs markedly from previous administrative and legislative efforts to make federal data available to the public in that it requires agencies to use the statutory framework for data access built by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to determine which data should be included and made available on Data.gov.

In many ways, Data.gov is situated at a nexus of different perspectives and competing priorities seeking to influence policy on how to make federal data available. Policymakers and stakeholders have variously emphasized different aspects of information policy, and Congress may continue to weigh in on what aspects the federal government should value. These considerations include how long data should be kept, what types of data should be stored (and in what formats), whether and how data should be made more available or secure, who should gain access to data and when, and what type and quality of data should be applied for particular purposes.

This report provides an overview of the operations of Data.gov, including how they continue to be influenced by past administrative decisions. It also discusses six perspectives toward information availability that continue to influence Data.gov’s operations and poses questions raised by each viewpoint that policymakers might consider regarding the website’s present and future development. The report then examines several related issues that Congress may wish to consider. These include the ability of Data.gov to serve varied audiences, transparency of data asset inclusion and reporting procedures, and the persistence of data access over time. Lastly, the report discusses debates regarding whether Data.gov, as home of the federal data catalog, should function as either a registry for locating data or a repository for hosting federal data…(More)”.

Paper by Gal Yona, Mor Geva, and Yossi Matias: “Despite significant strides in factual reliability, errors — often termed hallucinations — remain a major concern for generative AI, especially as LLMs are increasingly expected to be helpful in more complex or nuanced setups. Yet even in the simplest setting — factoid question-answering with clear ground truth-frontier models without external tools continue to hallucinate. We argue that most factuality gains in this domain have come from expanding the model’s knowledge boundary (encoding more facts) rather than improving awareness of that boundary (distinguishing known from unknown). We conjecture that the latter is inherently difficult: models may lack the discriminative power to perfectly separate truths from errors, creating an unavoidable tradeoff between eliminating hallucinations and preserving utility.
This tradeoff dissolves under a different framing. If we understand hallucinations as confident errors — incorrect information delivered without appropriate qualification — a third path emerges beyond the answer-or-abstain dichotomy: expressing uncertainty. We propose faithful uncertainty: aligning linguistic uncertainty with intrinsic uncertainty. This is one facet of metacognition — the ability to be aware of one’s own uncertainty and to act on it. For direct interaction, acting on uncertainty means communicating it honestly; for agentic systems, it becomes the control layer governing when to search and what to trust. Metacognition is thus essential for LLMs to be both trustworthy and capable; we conclude by highlighting open problems for progress towards this objective…(More)”.

Article by Anna Tumadóttir and Sarah Hinchliff Pearson: “When it comes to AI, copyright operates in a landscape that is uneven and often unclear. Because of this, the CC licenses, while still important, are not sufficient to address how content is used in AI systems. You can read more on this here. CC licenses also do not fully capture the range of intentions creators and data holders have in an AI-mediated world.

Across the web, creators, communities, and institutions are turning to multiple forms of defensive enclosure to restrict access. These include:

• Legal (e.g. licensing), such as open access publishers recommending CC BY-NC-ND as a mechanism of control, which ACM now does, which negatively impacts human collaboration.
• Technical (e.g. CAPTCHAs, bot blocking, rate limiting), such as what news publishers are doing, which negatively impacts archiving efforts.
• Financial (e.g. paywalled APIs), such as what X did post-acquisition, which negatively impacts researchers. 

The problem is that these tools treat all machine use as the same, regardless of the purpose. In trying to limit large-scale extraction by AI developers, they also block public interest uses like research, preservation, and accessibility.

While our research is ongoing, there are early indications of a more fragmented and potentially shrinking commons, along with a weakening of long-standing public interest protections…(More)”.

Book by Geoff Mulgan: “… explores innovation in the public sector, examining the mindsets, methods and strategies needed for success at every stage. It draws on global case studies to showcase key practical tools that can support innovation across local, regional and national governments.

Key Features:

• Demonstrates how to generate, gather and assess promising ideas
• Evaluates the role of markets and competition
• Presents approaches used to identify, spread and scale efficient new methods
• Highlights ways to prevent government and political environments from crushing imaginative risk-taking
• Covers the benefits and drawbacks of diverse methods, from the organisation of specialist teams and labs to systemic change, and from different models of finance to the use of data and AI

Providing an accessible and rigorous framework, this Advanced Introduction is essential reading for practitioners working in both city and national governments, as well as scholars and students of public policy, public sector economics, regulation and governance, administration, management and organisational innovation…(More)”.