In the absence of formalised venues and rules of procedure, how are the inclusion and exclusion of stakeholders decided and managed?

In International relations, the principle of "Customs" in international law, that is international obligations arising from established international practices versus obligations arising from formal written conventions and treaties, is a very pragmatic and practical practice. This therefore allows for the management of the included /excluded stake holder . For some it may seem as a trial and error, however in time this practice become formal rule of procedures.

In your opinion, what are the most important factors that led to the emergence of tech diplomacy?

The rise and power of tech companies over the past two decades have led Governments /Sates to step back to review the their overall effect on social, political and economic aspects of the world systems. Initially Governments allowed a lassie faire & innovative approach to tech companies development. However it can be agreed that this is inimical to wholistic development. Consequently due to the need to 'manage' this explosive growth, States particularly the EU & USA began to have a more targeted engagement with Tech companies.

How can tech companies contribute to solving policy challenges or challenges that the diplomatic practice faces?

This can be done by using technology to formulate products/programes that will be understood by diplomats. For example, breaking down problems into creative and implementable For example AI animation and text could be used to show the negative aspects of global warming and climate change.

In your opinion, what are some of the main reasons for companies to engage in tech diplomacy?

To create a win win scenario. The world system ironically has moved away from a very free market mode of operations to one of more regulations. As Tech companies thrive on innovations, there may be instances where regulations for example matters relating to the environment will affect their operation as seen with 3M and the release high rates of toxic in the environment to make their products.

What determines a tech company’s area of interest in tech diplomacy interactions?

This depends on the overall objective and the ethos of the company . For some tech companies they would like to inform the diplomats about their core functions. For others, they would like to influence the public space on matter they are working on for example AI .

Do tech companies have a global responsibility to address common challenges, such as climate change?

Ironically yes, why ? Because everything on earth is finite and if not managed in a sustainable way, will not be available for use in years to come/ Also owner of Tech are also reside on EARTH and if matters such as climate change, human right violations can and will affect them

Question : what are the main hubs beyond Silicon Valley where tech diplomacy should be practiced ?

This is a tough question, as Tech companies will establish themselves in areas where language, capital resources are in their favour. Nevertheless, because of the increase in population and improving growth in other jurisdictions it would be prudent to establish Tec hubs in countries in South America, Brazil and Africa – South Africa, Namibia and to expand in India.

What questions are important to ask to evaluate tech diplomacy practices What are the respective targets of the negotiations - Investment, cyber security, increase it trade , innovation ect ? At the end of the day who are the beneficiaries? is it the state or the tech companies or both? Are the outcomes long term or short term? Are the programs inclusive, : , global south, builds capacity, supports the environment

Question : Do you agree that tech diplomacy is a new phenomenon ?

The conflation between technology and diplomacy is not new but aan immerging phenomenon.

This relationship in its organic nascent form preceded the 2017 formalized merger between diplomatic representatives and tech companies. As highlighted by Garcia 2022, as technology advances so does the character of diplomacy. Therefore, Diplomats over the decades have used technology in its various forms to inform other entities of their respective perspectives

Question : what is the relationship between tec =h companies and diplomats

Diplomacy is traditionally an instrument used by sovereign states to develop and sustain peaceful and predictable relations among themselves. Oğurlu, E. (2019) Similarly Lee, D., & Hocking, B. (2015) defines diplomacy as the conduct of human affairs by peaceful means, employing techniques of persuasion and negotiation.

Within this mantra is a perception that all states are equal, particularly as defined by the United Nations Charter which states in Article 18 no 1 that : “Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote”.

It should be noted that the ethos of tec companies are built on competition, efficiencies, profit, science and technology, innovation, research and development, whilst the Diplomat’s is to ensure consent acquired through amicable discussions with other State’s representatives.

The relationship between tech companies and diplomats will vary according to the global strength of the state. For example, United States of America and the European Union have a very close relationship with tec companies. In some instances, they are able to discuss and establish amicable agreements on tech policies as it relates to the State, as seen with recent EU agreements with Google & Apple. At times this relationship can be unfavorable as seen by the current relationship between USA and Tic Tok.

Question what are the key points from the two videos

The key points relate to acknowledging that the global south was not included in the conversation and secondly the the urgent need for inclusion for countries of the Global south.

Although a lot was said about Africa, it is also necessary to ensure that concerns of other countries of the South particularly the Small Islands Developing States are included. Why ? As SIDS have differing challenges e.g. effects of climate change, limited resources, etc. Therefore, if the global south is neglected, any governance structure that will be developed may not meet their needs as they were missing from the conversation. Despite the challenges, there are options available to include the global south. Leveraging brain gain and the use qualified diaspora members as active participants in the Tec diplomacy conversation.

It is to be noted that the role of innovative leadership to lead the charge.