Stocktaking exercise of the Global Digital Compact process and how to link it to the WSIS +20 process

Experts debate the future of the World Digital Pact and global digital governance at forum

During a detailed forum on the future of digital cooperation, moderated by Henri Eli Monceau, experts Renata Dwan and Sorina Teleanu engaged in a dialogue on the World Digital Pact (GDC) and its implications for global digital governance. The forum focused on the drafting, negotiation, and potential implementation of the GDC, highlighting the need for clear mechanisms to ensure the pact’s objectives are achieved and effectively monitored.

Renata and Sorina underscored the necessity for clarity in the GDC’s implementation and follow-up mechanisms, emphasizing inclusivity and the reflection of the diverse needs of the global community, particularly those in the developing world. They pointed out the importance of addressing fundamental issues such as electricity access, which is essential for digital connectivity, and ensuring that local needs are prioritized in the GDC.

The discussion also touched on the need for capacity building and multilingualism within the GDC framework. It was argued that public servants require capacity building in a broader range of areas than just the development of inclusive public services, and that the GDC should better reflect multilingualism and multiculturalism, especially concerning digital skills and literacies.

Participants expressed concerns about the proliferation of UN bodies and events dealing with digital technologies, which leads to confusion and inefficiency. There was a call for better coordination and simplification to avoid duplication and to ensure that countries can effectively represent their interests without being overwhelmed by numerous events.

The dynamics between Geneva and New York as centers of digital dialogue were debated, with Geneva recognized for its technical expertise and multi-stakeholder dialogue facilitation, and New York noted for its ability to unify approaches aligned with development agendas. The discussion explored leveraging the strengths of both locations to enhance digital cooperation.

The need for modern, inclusive negotiation processes that can adapt to rapid technological changes was a significant point of discussion. The current negotiation methods were critiqued for being outdated and not conducive to inclusivity or agility. There was a suggestion for more soft power instruments or non-binding documents to reflect the need for more agility in international agreements on technology.

Looking ahead, the upcoming WSIS plus 20 review was seen as an opportunity to align the GDC with broader digital development goals and to reassess the progress made since the original WSIS. The creation of a fund to support digital inclusion and capacity building was supported, aiming to correct the digital divide and enable young people to be trained in the field of digital technologies.

In conclusion, the forum highlighted the importance of a clear, actionable implementation plan for the GDC that includes follow-up mechanisms and reflects the diverse needs of the global community. There was a consensus on the need for better coordination among UN bodies and processes, and for negotiation processes to be more inclusive and adaptive to rapid technological changes. The creation of a fund to support digital inclusion and capacity building was seen as a positive step towards achieving the GDC’s objectives. The discussion ended with an invitation to a related event focusing on civic tech and capacity enhancement, highlighting the role of entrepreneurship in advancing digital goals.

Renata Dwan:
you you

Henri Eli Monceau:
Yes, we we have And not come here I Okay Good evening, bonsoir Estampada en Francais ou en Anglais ? En Francais En Francais En anglais Okay We will start without more waiting this session you know that time is counted, things go fast at SMSI it is therefore a bilingual session those who wish can join the auditions that are over there near the elegant young man with his blue tie I think over there at the back As we are in this almost intimate ensemble, we are close to each other, there is a bit of a gap but it’s nice, we will be able to really talk together. The idea is not only to listen, we are very happy to have with us Renata who is the special advisor, it’s the official title I think, of the Tech Envoy, for the technologies, Amandeep Singh Gill whom you all know, and Sorina who delivers a work of analysis, training, a lot of things to the Diplo Foundation who are two people who have a very sharp view on this essential issue which is the World Digital Pact, the discussion has just ended in New York and we will enter next week in the official negotiation phase, article by article. So we are in a very interesting moment, we already have a draft, a revised project, there were two versions of the project, and maybe there will be a third one.

Renata Dwan:
We only have one? No, revised. It’s the first revision, but there is one before the negotiation? Maybe, she doesn’t want to say. We will have to push her a bit to know. But we have a base and we will go towards this negotiation. one or two questions, or maybe I’ll even write a comment. But what interests me, what interests us, is to have your view as well, and your questions. So we’ll come to you very quickly. So I’ll start precisely with Renata. Thank you very much. I know that the week has been extremely intense, and that it’s not over, by the way. But nevertheless, it’s super nice to have been able to free you to come and meet French speakers and others here. So I would like to ask you, obviously you are on the other side of the barrier, you are not negotiating, you are waiting to see what will happen. No, you are not negotiating, but if you had been in the position of a State and you see this version of the draft today, what is missing, in your opinion, in the text? It’s always good to start with the flaws rather than the advantages, but of course it’s a pleasure to be with you, Ambassador, and I’m delighted to meet you all today. I will perhaps divide my remarks between English and French, but perhaps just to start, what is missing in our project? I think perhaps something that is missing is the implementation aspect. On the one hand, it’s completely normal, because we are developing a document that will be signed by States, by heads of State. So it’s normal that it’s a document that remains at a rather strategic level, that defines a roadmap, let’s say. for the future, which defines the priorities at the level of cooperation in the digital and digital domain, but which perhaps lacks the details. How exactly can we elaborate this? How are we going to achieve our priorities? And that would be the effort in the following year and in the next year. And it will also involve the world of Geneva, very closely, because it concerns the future of what we call in English WSIS, the World Summit on Information Society Action Lines. It will also concern the role of IGF, the Internet Governance Forum. So it will also be an element of the details that must be defined, which will perhaps also include, perhaps more than today, the community of Geneva. I would say perhaps a second defect, a second absence, is perhaps a discussion around the question of means of implementation, in the end, the financial aspects. And it will always be quite difficult, but in the coming year, will it be possible to define either the funds or the elements? How can we elaborate the prospect, the prospect of pledges, let’s say, the promises in either the States or the private sector, which may be involved in the GDC project? So I see the two big defects like that. To be honest, I think the pact is quite ambitious in two questions. First, The GDC addresses long-term issues, issues of connectivity, issues of capacity, issues of digital public infrastructure, but it also addresses new issues. For example, emerging technologies, artificial intelligence. So it’s a good balance, I think, between the long-standing challenges and the new opportunities.

Henri Eli Monceau:
Thank you, Renata. Serena, same question. What’s missing so far?

Sorina Teleanu:
Thank you so much. I’m going to switch to English for a bit of language diversity. A tough question, I would say. And those of you who know me, you know we spend a lot of time trying to analyze these two documents and also looking at other comparisons. So we do have a few reflections there. But I absolutely agree with you. Maybe a bit more clarity on the implementation follow-up mechanism would have been useful. And as the negotiations advanced, I think that would be a good thing to have. I know there is a plan for the Secretary-General to produce some sort of a roadmap that would look into this. But I think there is still space for members to have a contribution there as well. Like, how do you as government see the implementation of all this? And how do you see the contribution of the various processes, human agencies and whatnot? So a plus. But going back to content, and I have been listening a lot this week and also before from various countries. Thank you. Switching mic as well. Particularly from the developing world on needs they feel could be better reflected in the GDC. And we’re just coming from a discussion with some of the African community. There are some references in the GDC about, okay, whatever solutions we’re going to implement, make sure we reflect the local needs and reality. A bit more focused on that. And we just heard the ambassador of Mauritius. You know, we’re talking about AI, but we still don’t have electricity out there. So how are we connecting these things? a bit better, so that would be one thing. And then I do have a bunch of other notes. There is a paragraph out there talking about capacity building for public servants, but limits it to capacity building for the development of inclusive public services. And I think our public servants need capacity building in a lot more areas than just building inclusive public services. So maybe building a bit around that as well. And something I have been hearing from communities in the Arab world and also across Africa is this notion about multilingualism and multiculturalism, and how they can be better reflected in the GDC. I think right now it’s connected to digital skills and literacies, so maybe, yeah, a bit more nuances there as well. The list can go on, but I can stop and hear from you as well. Thank you.

Henri Eli Monceau:
Thank you, Serena. So a text that is more based on principles, but which is in part, in fact, the mission of IMPACT, but with nevertheless strong demands, which we see expressed, by the way, on perhaps a slightly more executive approach, which really allows us to do things, because we know that the principles, and I think in particular of those that are dear to us, the question of inclusion, the question of linguistic and cultural diversity, so the discoverability of content according to their language and their culture. These principles, well, we have quite a few reference texts today. So we are happy that it is a global text at the level of the United Nations, but it’s not too difficult to find today a way to refer to it. On the other hand, knowing how the international community can move forward, there is still a long way to go. I hear that this would perhaps be a delegated role to existing institutions, such as this one, the ESG. CMSI and the Internet Governance Forum. How can all this really be articulated? What is the vision that the co-facilitators, perhaps the States, and in any case the Office of the Envoy for Technology, have on this aspect of implementation?

Renata Dwan:
Yes, and can I just say that one thing that has been interesting for me this week in Geneva has been that we have tended to focus a lot on the bodies and on the mechanisms and not on the ambition. So to achieve your ambition, you need to think about the how, the mechanisms, the processes, the institutions. But I would really hope that we also keep our eye on the bigger game of the targets that we have in the text. We’ve set ambitious targets that first link the digital agenda to the SDGs in a way that I think WSIS plus 10 did in 2015, but in a much more, I think, comprehensive way. The entire text is framed around closing the digital divides and accelerating progress on the SDGs. So how do we harness the promise of digital technologies? And second, I think new, it brings in the notion of how do we advance inclusion in the digital economy? And that emphasis on the digital economy and the changing the potential for developing States and all States to become not only consumers of digital technologies, but producers of value in the digital environment is, I think, a really critical theme that we want to keep that level of ambition. And the third, I do just want to flag because you asked about digital public infrastructure, Serena. We put a huge priority on digital public infrastructure. infrastructure in the text, and that’s a reflection of excitement that member states have about the promise of digital technology to deliver public services at scale, and with an efficiency that perhaps has not met them before. I think we have to thank the Indian Presidency of the G20 for putting that very front and centre on the international agenda. We also have to thank the Global South Summit in Uganda that really highlighted that this year in January. So that’s another exciting aspect of the goal. So when we think about the mise-en-oeuvre, when we think about the implementation of how do we put forward this, I would like to really encourage us to first set the ambition and then we’ll look at the function. What I would flag is that the GDC tries to build on the lessons of the WSIS by setting concrete targets, and those targets are coming from the ITU’s Universal Meaningful Aspirational Targets. It sets some concrete options for how states can follow through and report on their commitments at and through their reporting on their SDGs through the High-Level Political Forum. But then in terms of implementation, it highlights regional economic commissions, the role of national digital transformation programmes, including through funds such as the SDG funds, and it looks at multi-stakeholder and public-private partnerships as critical drivers for that engagement. So I think it is, even if it has been a centralising exercise where we’ve come together to say what are the vehicles, what are the priorities and the roadmap we want to set for digital cooperation and digital governance, the implementation of that is going to be decentralised and is going to take place at the regional, the national, the local level, but in particularly through partnerships. And the way the… co-facilitators are offering to keep that coherence and keep our eye on the the global roadmap that we’re setting is that there is a periodic review at a high level to maintain that political visibility to maintain that momentum and to allow all the many different actors that are involved in driving digital development to come together periodically and review that process. So I think that the IGF will have a critical role to play and there’s a proposal there for an annual policy track on the GDC in the IGF. There is a critical proposal for WSIS and the WSIS action lines the opportunity is the following year to look at how they can take forward the GDC, the five objectives and how they can perhaps reflect those objectives. But I don’t think we should limit it just to our UN entities. We really need the multi-stakeholder partnerships that exist within but also outside the UN. We also need the regional development actors, the African Union, the sub-regional actors like ECOWAS, CDAO, SADC and others to take this forward.

Henri Eli Monceau:
Thank you, so let’s decentralize immediately. I promised we would discuss with the audience. So I’m sure that among our colleagues here in Geneva, there may be one or two who would like to react to what has been said so far. Soraya Zanardo, Mission Belgique, Wallonia-Brussels.

Audience:
I had a question that was partly already asked by Ambassador Monceau, which is that of the articulation between the existing and the new. And it is true that we also heard this question asked in another way, which is the articulation in the digital ecosystem in the United Nations between New York and Geneva. Because the existing mainly revolves around Geneva, you have responded by talking about decentralization, by naming different entities, including the regional economic commissions. So I ask the question from the angle of this articulation between what is happening in Geneva and what is happening in New York. I will just explain a little bit why. It is not a question of geography, it is more of a question of the multi-stakeholder model with different possibilities in New York, the fact that there is a place for member states in New York. A question also in relation to the expertise that has been cultivated in the mission here in Geneva, which is not necessarily there in New York. And we encounter this in our discussions with our colleagues in New York, who ask us a lot of questions to be able to negotiate. So my question is a little bit about the articulation that you see. Obviously, the text is not final. It’s not finished yet, I’m also asking you to do a little bit of a pole dance exercise. But that’s it, the articulation between these two places, but also two ways of thinking. Thank you very much.

Renata Dwan:
Thank you very much Soraya. So I think the question was addressed to Renata first, but it may be interesting to hear about this aspect, Sorina. Renata, you have the floor. Well, thank you for the question. And indeed it’s been the question that has dominated much of the week in Geneva, New York. And I’m also glad to see that your delegations are working closely together between Geneva and New York, because that’s what you do in many other spaces. You do that in the arms control space, where when I had the joy of working and living here, we made our annual pilgrimage to New York. We do it in the humanitarian space, where the humanitarian agencies are here, and where much of the work goes on, but which we come to New York, including in relation to where the humanitarian coordinator sits. We do it on many different factors. So I don’t think it’s hard to walk and chew gum for you diplomats. You’re talented, you’re engaged, and you’re knowledgeable. So I do think that is an option to engage, and that feed-in and that engagement is enabled by digital technologies and your engagement with each other. I do agree with you that it’s a more supportive environment in Geneva than in New York for multi-stakeholder dialogue. And having worked in both cities, I can certainly say that it’s more accessible here for civil society, and it’s more fluid and interactive here. And I think that therefore raises the question of when we think about how the GDC will be implemented, how can we leverage the benefits of both? cities of both locations. It seems to me that what Geneva brings is much of the technical expertise and as you said really that facilitation of multi-stakeholder dialogue. What New York brings is the forcing pressure of coming together because it’s a general assembly. So it doesn’t permit the level of fragmentation and silos that sometimes can be a risk here and it also brings the alignment with the development priorities, the SDGs sitting in New York and the driving that development agenda and I don’t think that should be underestimated as we begin to contemplate what is a post-2030 development agenda for the United Nations and how central will digital technologies and digital cooperation and governance be to that. The third point I would just reflect on how to leverage the advantages and the challenges of these two different locations is that it absolutely must not come at the exclusion of other regional capitals or the UN. In the real world that much of the implementation is going to take place on the ground in countries and in processes that are not following either Geneva or New York or potentially even for that matter Nairobi or Bangkok and so how we facilitate and enable and support countries in thinking about their implementation goals, how we support regional actors in thinking about the possibility of looking at interoperability. The Caribbean is a good example. I participated in the SIDS IGF this week online and there their question is interoperability is not only a desirable for economic growth it’s a necessity for connectivity in the Pacific islands for example. So how can we facilitate that sort of engagement I think is as much a question as how we can bring the Geneva and New York sides and my plea is that the global digital compact doesn’t become a UN digital conversation and that we really keep the sense of this bigger ambition that we’re trying to achieve that includes what goes beyond Geneva and New York.

Henri Eli Monceau:
Sorina, do you want to comment on this? I can try to add a few points.

Sorina Teleanu:
Going back to what Soraya was saying, comparing the old and the new and what’s in the GDC that maybe was not there. I think just looking at the specific proposals there would help us also have a bit more clarity in the discussion. What is actually new? Because we keep talking about duplication, but do we take a step back and look where exactly is that duplication? It’s not much, right? There’s not much new. So we’re talking about this high-level AI and data and human rights. So I can try to summarize it quickly in case not everyone in the room is aware. We’re talking, first of all, about this high-level meeting in two years time in New York to look at some sort of a preview implementation, what has happened in two years. So that would be one new process. And throughout discussions this week, I think some people are concerned about this. So we have a review of implementation of GDC. We have a review of implementation of WSIS. And then we have agenda 2030. So maybe a bit more coordination between these three could help also in avoiding, overloading some of the missions that might not have enough capacity. So that would be one. And then, yes, you have a lot of new things around AI. So we have the international scientific panel who’s supposed to come up with this consensus around risks. We have this new contact group. No?

Renata Dwan:
I think there’s three proposals in the GDC with regard to AI. The first is a scientific panel, not to so much as to look at risk, but to facilitate an exchange and facilitate accessibility for all countries around trends, developments, horizon scanning around emerging technologies and specifically AI. So that’s the first proposal. The second proposal is the idea that as countries are developing their governance approaches to AI, that there is an annual global dialogue that brings together all representatives of the appropriate actors doing AI that can come together and look at what’s emerging in terms of governance approaches. There are many things happening outside the UN by groups of states, and they’re to be recommended. And there’s many states looking at their own national AI strategies. Having the opportunity to have that exchange at a regular level and once a year is a way we think of facilitating the debate around standards that will take place, very much so led in a Geneva basis, the debates around priorities, the debates around interoperabilities, and what the experiences and lessons are around navigating safety and basic issues such as rights and bias, non-discrimination. And the third proposal is for an AI and sustainable development fund that is intended to or it is proposed to facilitate collaboration that cannot take place at the national level around gathering large data sets, developing AI capacity, and supporting AI compute, supporting collaborations within and between countries on developing those capacities.

Sorina Teleanu:
Thank you for that. And then the final new element is what you were talking about earlier around data governance and the idea of something happening at the UNGA level, right? And I think there is a concern here from Geneva around that specific process, because we have CSCD who is supposed to do something around data governance and a few other discussions. So maybe a bit more strengthening of connections there would help alleviate some of these concerns.

Henri Eli Monceau:
Thank you. Before going back to you, and I have noted two questions, a small comment on this question. And it is true that it is a bit of a debate to initiate rather than to arrive all the time on this vocabulary, Geneva, New York. and we can see it in our Member States as well, in any case, in relation to the actors that are outside of the digital debate and perhaps even sometimes of the global multilateralism. What matters, in the end, is the question of overcoming the silos. It is the way in which the digital can really be transversal, to be considered in its governance as transversal. There is an essential work that has been done by a certain number of organizations, not necessarily specialized in digital, but I think, for example, of what the OIT has done in the perspective of its centenary on the future of work. We have mentioned human rights, it has been a few years now that the High Commissioner and even the Council are looking at the issue. We could multiply these examples, and what is really important is how all this can be taken into account to participate in this transformation. We have not found the secret today, neither on the national, regional or multilateral level, but obviously we must be able to think about it. A second comment, which is perhaps a question to which we will have the opportunity to answer later, but the division between artificial intelligence and digital governance, is it not a bit artificial in itself? In the sense that, obviously, artificial intelligence, I will caricature, but it is digital plus data, basically. So on the level of governance, for the most part, we are on the same matrix. And here too, we must perhaps be careful not to end up with two axes that could appear as divergent, including in relation to the institutions that would be assigned to them or through which we would approach them. So, in my opinion, there are still some signs a little bit of caution in relation to that on the debate that is coming. But I’m going to give the floor to the gentleman over there right now. Please, and if you want to introduce yourself and then…

Audience:
I mean, as to the bodies of the UN, which are handling the technologies. And like, for example, you already had an AI… I mean, UNESCO is also dealing with UI. You already had an AI advisory body, UN Secretary General Office, I guess. ITU, as such, is dealing with AI. So, and then we have a new GDC. I don’t know whether the GDC will be a permanent setup or… So, I mean, as a country we are looking for, I mean, single body for all technology. And that’s it. Because, you know, we’re honestly very confused, I mean, where to represent, because there are too many events happening around, which UN does, and it becomes very difficult for us to, you know, raise our voices in every event. And the three bodies that you mentioned, you know, I mean, the creation of the fund and the creation of a scientific panel. I mean, where will this be housed? This will be housed in the UN Secretary General Office or it will be housed in some other body?

Henri Eli Monceau:
Thank you very much, Renata.

Audience:
Serena, it’s always good to see you again. My question is perhaps very simple. On the first day of WSIS, we heard a bit of a buzz during the two days. The WSIS plus 30 question, already. But, Renata, you mentioned, as we plan for 2030, and currently probably a big update. and retrospective on the SDGs. My question was simply, we are talking about the GDC, but next year we are in a situation where there is the OSS plus 20, the renewal. In your opinion, when we think about the GDC and next year, is 2030 more appropriate for renewal? Or at least a major reflection, regardless of the decisions that will be taken this year or next year. Because if you have, as you mentioned in your remarks, if everything is the same, the GDC and the OSS, it is for the SDG results. It seems to me that maybe we are missing the boat on these current questions. So it’s a pretty simple question.

Henri Eli Monceau:
Thank you very much, David. Jérôme, maybe…

Audience:
Thank you, Henri, and thank you for the French. It’s a pleasure to speak in French. It’s rare, even in Geneva, to be able to speak in French. Jérôme Bellion-Jourdan, I was a diplomat for the European Union, so well versed in the world of negotiation, and I now work for a global negotiation institute in support of multilateral negotiation processes. And my question is related to the elaboration of the pact. It seems to me that we are in a period where we continue to elaborate texts in a classic way. Intergovernmental negotiations, consultations. And the question I ask myself is, how would we be able to go beyond these modes of negotiation to have more inclusive negotiations, to move on to new technologies, also on issues such as digital, ways of elaborating a pact where we would have a larger audience and perhaps many more citizens who would be directly involved in the elaboration of this text. And also the question I ask myself is, how to make this text not a text that is adopted in September, but a text that is alive. in a situation where there is a rapid speed of evolution on the issue of new technologies, how to make sure that this text and other texts are also text that are evolutive and that are brought to adapt and anticipate the technological evolutions that we will see in the coming months, next years. Thank you.

Henri Eli Monceau:
Thank you very much. I give you the floor again. And then after, I think we will just have the opportunity to react from Renata and Sorina. But do not hesitate if you yourself have answers to provide or comments.

Audience:
Yes, this is a question for Sorina. In fact, it is the person in Geneva, I think, who knows Smith better, the World Summit of the Society of Information. What is your wish, Sorina, for the SMIS plus 20? What would be the big issues for you that the discussion must now address in relation to this revision or refreshment or renovation? All the possible reasons for such an important conference for Geneva. And what would be your proposal, if you have any now, how to link the revision plus 20 with the birth of the World Digital Pact? Thank you.

Henri Eli Monceau:
So I’m going to try. It’s a bit of a puzzle, but I’m going to try. A brief reminder of the questions that have been asked. A question, however, on this polarization, on how to avoid a polarization and that we are effective in relation to the country. And that’s it, we get out of this debate. A question on the deadlines. Is a deadline in two years, a revision clause in two years, already a deadline for next year in relation to SMS 6 plus 20. Is it relevant in relation to the fact of giving a little more time and relying on 2030? How can we… So, I allow myself, Jérôme, we are not going to change the method of negotiation now, but, on the other hand, keep a living text and maybe include other methods of negotiation. So, in this diagram, SMS 6 plus 20 is seen by the diploma, let’s say. Who wants to start?

Sorina Teleanu:
2003-2005 today, what’s new coming out of the GDC and seeing where we are with the implementation of all the past documents, where we are with the new ambitions that Renata has been mentioning. And then, yeah, we don’t have to go and renegotiate the WSIS outcome documents because we know that’s going to be painful for everyone, but looking at the implementation, these are the things we have managed to achieve, these are the things we have not managed to achieve, these are the things we still need to work on, what are we doing? And maybe not necessarily only at an international level, and this is also related to an earlier point, but looking at how we can support countries, communities locally to implement all these global ambitions we’re setting up in New York and in Geneva. We’re talking a lot about the global south, but what are we doing as an international community to meaningfully and impactfully support those communities to implement whatever goal we set for them, I would say. So, I do not have a very straightforward answer, but I would like us to be a bit more practical and see exactly where we are and what we haven’t achieved and what can we do concretely to support these local communities. And then maybe a crystal ball will help a bit. Thank you.

Henri Eli Monceau:
Maybe we can bring all three closely together in some way, and, I don’t know, can we come up with one single document? Yeah, I’m going to make a stupid suggestion now.

Sorina Teleanu:
Let’s put all these documents through an AI system, since we talk so much about AI these days, right, and come up with one single document. Yeah, I’m going to make a stupid suggestion now, so bear with me. Let’s put all these documents through an AI system, since we talk so much about AI these days, right, and come up with one single document. These are our goals, these are our concrete suggestions, let’s implement them and do concrete things across the world in a meaningful way. So not exactly responding to your question, but building on it.

Henri Eli Monceau:
Renata.

Renata Dwan:
Thank you for the questions, and I really appreciate the interest in this. Maybe to our Indian colleague, you’re absolutely right, most states aren’t bothered, whether it’s New York, Geneva, they need clarity on what, how, where. I think it would be wrong to think that digital can all sit in one house or one place, or AI can sit in one house or one place, or digital literacy can sit in one house or one place. If you look at the scale with which every piece of the agenda for development has a digital component, whether it’s health, agriculture, environment, so I think digital is a full transformation agenda. What I would say is that it would be, the Global Digital Compact is an attempt to try to say what are some of the priorities, and then how can we perhaps coordinate better around them. And one of the proposals is the idea of the Office of the Secretary General’s Envoy on Technology having a coordination function to do precisely that. But it’s exactly about making it less complicated and less numerical. I doubt we’ll be able to reduce the sheer number of events around the world right now on digital, and that you see. the scale of interest, but it is absolutely a concern, and I agree. On the question of the SDGs and the 2030 agenda, I think the interest for so many countries in digital technologies is precisely to have that potential to leapfrog and make good on those digital goals, or development goals, and we are lagging behind. So the question, it seems to me, is how can, when we think about that SD agenda, will there be scope to say, how do we integrate some of the digital goals we have? I’ll give you an example. If we have set a goal for a certain percentage of people being digitally skilled in the global digital compact, that’s part of an education goal, that’s part of the SDG goal around education. Digital infrastructure, if we’ve set a goal for connectivity and for broadband accessibility and affordability, is that something we integrate into the SDGs? So that opportunity is there. Does it mean that we need to rethink the timing of when we review the high-level review? Potentially. But I do think it’s an opportunity to think about how we bring together the WSIS plus 20 into any review and its results so that we get that coherence going. And on our 19th century tools that we use for 21st century problems and opportunities, all I can say is that I absolutely agree with you that the way we’re negotiating, the formalization and the play over wording really often obscures what it is we’re trying to do. And it doesn’t really encourage a gap analysis or problem-solving approach. It doesn’t say, why are we slow on this? What is the nature of incentives for connectivity that leaves one-third of the world still unconnected? What are the opportunities of new digital solutions that could allow progress in these areas? I fully agree with you that it’s not a helpful tool. I would just observe two things. First I think we are going towards more soft power instruments or non-binding instruments to try to reflect we need a little more agility in those documents. They’re not going to be conventions signed, negotiated over five years and last forever. So perhaps the GDC reflects that. Second is the notion of more periodicity in when we review progress and that links to having specific targets. What are we going to measure and then how do we know when we get there? So I think that’s part of this trend to try to be more agile. Third, while it is an intergovernmental phase we’re in now, as the Ambassador described at the beginning, we did have long sessions of multi-stakeholder. We had regional dialogues, we had engagements with private sector, there was engagements at the IGF and WSIS. So that’s an example of how you’re having to think about engaging these days. So the negotiations may end up taking place and being finalised in one place, but they’ve been a series of conversations for many years. And then third, I would say using virtual tools or fourth, virtual tools to actually facilitate access, broadcasting meetings, circulating documents, having annotated progressive steps towards documents. Those are some of the things we’ve experimented with. I wouldn’t say they’re perfect, but one thing I would just give an example of something that worked. Having the open call for contributions for inputs allowed everybody to see what was the European Union’s input, what was China’s input, what was Nokia’s input or Ericsson’s. So there has been at least some sense of that process over the last two years.

Henri Eli Monceau:
Thank you very much, Renata. I would also like to add an element, perhaps, in relation to this taking into account the methods of negotiation. There is the question of capacity enhancement, quite simply, because we have to keep in mind that everybody is not equal in the current negotiation. We have already mentioned this difficulty. New York in the sense that we are dealing with missions that are very little equipped, in general. I was at the very beginning of the process, a little over a year ago, in New York. At that time, I met a lot of delegations and everyone said, but we don’t have any experts, on the one hand, and above all, we have very little staff compared to all the issues that are addressed in the context of the Summit for the Future, which, of course, add to a situation that is already well charged. So there is this problem. So what about developing countries, the least advanced countries, which have enormous difficulties to position themselves simply on the issue of digital negotiation? We know that multilateral negotiations on e-commerce, sheltered by the WTO, only include six African countries, for example, out of the hundred countries involved in these negotiations. So there are still, it must be admitted, great differences in the ability to access the negotiating table. And that, of course, must be included for the future. We understand that we want strong markers in September, and this is probably in the interest of the entire international community, but this text must be able to integrate its own future. So I also see, since we are online, I have very little visibility, but I see that a representative of the Swiss government, who is Roger Cancio, I think, raised his hand. I don’t know if he has the possibility to express himself from where he is, but in any case, he also put a comment on the website, which is In times of complexity and financial crisis in the UN, probably we should look for simplicity. synergies and building on existing processes such as WSIS. Thank you, Renata and Sorina, for taking part in this discussion. I would also like to inform you that as far as Francophonie is concerned, we continue and we will soon be in New York with our colleagues, who are here permanently, and who are trying to influence this text as much as possible. We focus on two aspects, which are linguistic and cultural diversity. This is not a gadget. If we want this text to resemble the world population, we must obviously try to mitigate a very strong bias of the Internet and digital, which is that of the erasure of heritage and diversity. And so the question that was raised at the very beginning, the issue that was raised by Renata on principles, but for what means of action, we must be able to do it. We have a proposal that is extremely simple. There is a convention that was adopted by all member states of UNESCO in 2005 on cultural diversity and the appreciation of cultural heritage. If only the text could refer to it, I think we would do a stone’s throw, because it would also be a way of integrating a work that is already being done at the level of the United Nations. The other issue is that of inclusion. Everyone talks about inclusion. but at some point, the inclusion beyond the plans that exist on connectivity, it is the reinforcement of capacity, it is the training, it is that young people can be trained in the field of digital, and that requires money, as was mentioned. So we are in favor of the creation of a fund, so that a mention is made to the creation of a fund that allows to correct this. Finally, to really finish, I give you an appointment for those who still have a little time, in a quarter of an hour, I think a little more than a quarter of an hour, right in front of the Graduate Institute, we will meet four young civic techs, so entrepreneurs who have developed projects that are really focused on, since we have AI for Good, we have Tech for Good right in front, how can we improve things. Two of them are fighting, Anne-Marie, we do this with ICT for Peace, so two of them are fighting against disinformation. There is one that compares the conditions of use of digital tools depending on where we are, and we can see that it is not the same thing as connecting to Instagram in Geneva or Mombasa, for example. And there is one that escapes me. Ah yes, sorry, which is precisely focused on capacity enhancement and which forms thousands of young people in Africa from local operators today. So this is at the Graduate at 6.15 p.m. in the Lab of the Graduate, and it will be followed, that’s what Antoine wants to tell me, by a cocktail, a reception. There are little cakes. Bonne soirée, bonne continuation à toutes et tous. you