Open Forum #47 Demystifying WSis+20

Summary

This discussion focused on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process, examining progress made over the past two decades and identifying priorities for the upcoming December negotiations. The panel, hosted by Finland and featuring representatives from ICANN, UNDP, government, civil society, and Smart Africa, explored how WSIS commitments have been implemented and what gaps remain.

Panelists emphasized that WSIS has successfully established multi-stakeholder participation in internet governance discussions, a significant achievement compared to traditional UN processes. Technical initiatives like DNSSEC and internationalized domain names were highlighted as concrete successes that emerged from WSIS frameworks. However, significant challenges persist, particularly the digital divide affecting 2.6 billion people globally and substantial gender gaps in digital access.

A live poll revealed that digital capacity building in under-resourced regions was identified as the most pressing need requiring greater support. Smart Africa’s representative outlined four critical gaps for Africa: meaningful connectivity, regulatory harmonization, capacity building including AI literacy, and digital sovereignty. The technical community stressed the importance of preserving global internet standards and interoperability that have enabled the internet’s success.

Participants noted a concerning disconnect between New York-based UN diplomatic processes and the technical communities that have been working on these issues for decades. They emphasized the need for stakeholders to actively participate in the WSIS Plus 20 process, provide concrete evidence of what works, and demand meaningful inclusion in negotiations. The discussion concluded with calls for continued multi-stakeholder engagement to ensure the December outcome reflects practical realities of how the internet functions and serves global development needs.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS Plus 20 Review Process and Timeline**: The panel discussed the upcoming 20-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), including its mandate, deliverables, and timeline leading to December 2024 negotiations. This includes examining whether existing WSIS action lines and institutions like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) remain fit for purpose.

– **Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Inclusivity**: A central theme was ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholders – government, civil society, technical community, and underrepresented regions – in the WSIS Plus 20 process. Panelists emphasized the need to maintain and strengthen the multi-stakeholder model that has been a hallmark of WSIS success.

– **Digital Divide and Capacity Building**: The discussion highlighted persistent gaps in global digital access, with particular focus on meaningful connectivity, affordability, digital skills, and infrastructure needs in underserved regions, especially Africa. A live poll showed capacity building as the top priority needing greater support.

– **Technical Infrastructure Successes and Ongoing Needs**: Panelists reviewed concrete achievements from WSIS initiatives, including DNSSEC implementation, internationalized domain names, and Internet exchange points (IXPs) deployment, while identifying areas still requiring attention like universal acceptance and interoperability.

– **Practical Steps for Stakeholder Engagement**: The conversation concluded with specific recommendations for how different communities can contribute to shaping the WSIS Plus 20 outcome, including showing up to consultations, providing evidence-based input, and demanding seats at decision-making tables.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to prepare stakeholders for meaningful participation in the WSIS Plus 20 review process by explaining the scope and timeline, identifying successful outcomes from the past 20 years, highlighting current gaps and priorities, and providing concrete steps for engagement before the December 2024 negotiations.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was collaborative and constructive throughout, with panelists demonstrating shared commitment to the multi-stakeholder approach despite representing different sectors. There was a sense of cautious optimism about progress made while acknowledging significant work remains. The discussion maintained a practical, action-oriented focus rather than being purely theoretical, with panelists offering specific examples and concrete recommendations. The tone remained consistently professional and forward-looking, emphasizing the importance of continued engagement and not taking past achievements for granted.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Theresa Swinehart** – Works with ICANN, session moderator

– **Yu Ping Chan** – Leads digital engagements and partnerships at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

– **Jarno Suruela** – Undersecretary of State for International Trade at the Finnish Foreign Ministry

– **Fiona Alexander** – Professor at American University in Washington, D.C., former government official with experience in internet governance

– **Kurtis Lindqvist** – President and CEO of ICANN

– **Lacina Kone** – CEO and Director General of Smart Africa, a Pan-African organization based in Kigali

– **UNKNOWN** – Role/title not specified in transcript

**Additional speakers:**

None identified – all speakers in the transcript were included in the provided speakers names list.

# WSIS Plus 20 Review: Assessing Two Decades of Progress and Charting the Path Forward

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive discussion, moderated by Theresa Swinehart from ICANN and hosted by Finland, brought together key stakeholders to examine the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. The panel featured Yu Ping Chan from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Jarno Suruela from the Finnish Foreign Ministry, Fiona Alexander from American University, Kris Lindqvist from ICANN, and Lacina Kone from Smart Africa.

The discussion revealed both significant achievements and persistent challenges in global digital development. Panelists emphasized that WSIS has successfully established multi-stakeholder participation as a cornerstone of internet governance, with concrete technical successes including DNSSEC implementation and internationalized domain names. However, substantial challenges remain, particularly the digital divide affecting 2.6 billion people globally and significant gender gaps in digital access.

A live poll conducted during the session identified digital capacity building in under-resourced regions as the most pressing priority. The December negotiations will determine critical outcomes including the future of the Internet Governance Forum and potential updates to WSIS action lines.

## The WSIS Plus 20 Process and Timeline

Yu Ping Chan provided essential context for the WSIS Plus 20 review, explaining this represents the second comprehensive review by the UN General Assembly of the 2003-2005 WSIS outcomes. The process examines whether existing action lines remain sufficient for addressing current digital developments and involves multiple UN agencies drafting reports and conducting stakeholder consultations.

The timeline includes several critical milestones leading to December negotiations. Chan emphasized that the multi-stakeholder approach remains central to WSIS and must be maintained throughout the review process, though she acknowledged significant challenges in ensuring meaningful participation within traditional UN frameworks.

Jarno Suruela reinforced that the Global Digital Compact and WSIS should be implemented in synchronization rather than as competing initiatives. The December resolution will determine whether the Internet Governance Forum continues and potentially update WSIS action lines to reflect contemporary digital realities.

## Multi-Stakeholder Engagement: Achievements and Structural Challenges

All panelists demonstrated strong consensus on the fundamental importance of multi-stakeholder engagement while acknowledging implementation challenges. The multi-stakeholder model has been central to WSIS achievements and must be protected in the Plus 20 process.

Fiona Alexander highlighted critical structural challenges, noting that New York-based UN systems are not as open as expert agencies, creating barriers for stakeholder participation. She emphasized that co-facilitators have made positive efforts to allow stakeholder input, but continued pressure is needed to maintain access.

Yu Ping Chan identified a significant gap between the New York diplomatic community and technical communities that have worked on these issues for decades. She observed that General Assembly processes tend to oversimplify complex technical issues and insert compromised language without understanding implications, creating risks of applying inappropriate political context to accepted technical terms.

Lacina Kone provided a positive counterpoint, demonstrating how multi-stakeholder cooperation works effectively when rooted in regional needs. Smart Africa’s experience shows that continental ownership creates leverage, with African heads of state making digital development a political imperative.

## Technical Infrastructure: Concrete Achievements

Kris Lindqvist provided a comprehensive overview of technical achievements over the past 20 years. DNSSEC implementation represents a significant accomplishment in addressing DNS security weaknesses through global cooperation. The evolution of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) to support non-Latin scripts has improved linguistic accessibility, though universal acceptance remains an ongoing challenge.

Africa has experienced phenomenal growth in Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) over the past two decades. The global deployment of root server instances, with almost 2,000 instances improving internet stability and performance, represents another concrete achievement of multi-stakeholder cooperation.

Lindqvist made a thought-provoking observation about the paradox of success, suggesting that the internet’s achievements may have made people take global standards for granted. The technical community must continue providing evidence and implementation data showing what works, particularly as the success of global interoperability standards may make their importance less visible to policymakers.

## Regional Development and Persistent Digital Divides

The discussion highlighted persistent gaps in global digital access, with particular focus on meaningful connectivity, affordability, digital skills, and infrastructure needs. Suruela presented sobering statistics: 2.6 billion people still lack internet access, with significant gender gaps and urban-rural disparities. Addressing the digital divide is crucial for getting back on track with Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development Goal targets.

Lacina Kone provided detailed insights into African digital development challenges, identifying four persistent gaps: meaningful connectivity, regulatory harmonization, skills development, and digital sovereignty. Despite having over 50 digital laws across the continent, Africa suffers from little interoperability, requiring continental legal frameworks to address fragmentation.

The skills gap remains particularly acute, with less than 10% of adults in several African countries possessing basic digital skills. New challenges are emerging with artificial intelligence literacy gaps. Smart Africa, as a Pan-African organization based in Kigali representing over 40 countries and 1.1 billion people, demonstrates how continental ownership can create leverage and deliver concrete results.

## Language and Communication Challenges

A significant theme was the critical importance of language clarity in UN processes. Chan and Lindqvist both identified terminology as a major challenge from different perspectives. Chan emphasized the gap between diplomatic and technical communities, recommending clear, simple, actionable language that diplomats already understand to avoid misinterpretation.

Lindqvist warned that language matters significantly in UN processes, with terms like “sovereignty” and “control” having different meanings to different communities. He expressed concern that political context can be inappropriately applied to technical terms, creating negotiation complications that could undermine the global interoperability that has enabled internet success.

This reflects a broader structural problem: the disconnect between technical experts who understand practical implications of policy decisions and the diplomatic community that ultimately makes those decisions.

## The Internet Governance Forum’s Future

The sustainability of the Internet Governance Forum emerged as a critical concern requiring resolution in December negotiations. Suruela highlighted that the IGF serves as the primary multi-stakeholder forum for international digital policy, with over 160 national and regional initiatives demonstrating its global reach.

However, the IGF requires a more sustainable financial basis from the regular UN budget to ensure continued operations and meaningful participation from underserved regions. The December resolution will determine whether the IGF continues and potentially update WSIS action lines to reflect contemporary digital governance needs.

## Priority Setting and Stakeholder Input

The live poll identified digital capacity building in under-resourced regions as the top priority, reinforcing the development-focused origins of WSIS while highlighting the continued relevance of its foundational principles. Interestingly, open technical standards and cross-border interoperability received minimal support, which Lindqvist interpreted as potentially indicating success rather than lack of importance.

The poll results validated the development orientation that several panelists emphasized throughout the session, suggesting that capacity building remains as critical today as at the summit’s inception.

## Philosophical Framework and Global Context

Lacina Kone provided a sophisticated framework for understanding current global dynamics, distinguishing between multipolarity as a geopolitical fact and multilateralism as a conscious choice to cooperate. This distinction elevated the discussion from technical implementation to fundamental questions about how nations choose to engage in digital governance.

This framework helped contextualize WSIS Plus 20 challenges within broader global trends towards fragmentation while emphasizing that cooperation remains viable despite geopolitical tensions.

## Concrete Action Steps and Recommendations

The discussion concluded with specific recommendations for different stakeholder communities:

**Technical communities** should continue providing concrete evidence and implementation data showing what works, highlighting fundamental principles that have enabled internet success.

**All stakeholder groups** were encouraged to engage with the informal multi-stakeholder feedback group being established by co-facilitators and participate in upcoming consultations.

**Regional organizations** should share concrete success stories and operational examples, following Smart Africa’s model of demonstrating how multi-stakeholder cooperation can deliver tangible results.

**National engagement** was emphasized, with stakeholders urged to engage with their governments to inform WSIS Plus 20 positions and participate in upcoming events, including the high-level WSIS event in Geneva.

## Path Forward and Critical Decisions

The WSIS Plus 20 process represents a critical juncture for internet governance, with December decisions potentially affecting the next decade of digital policy. The strong consensus among diverse stakeholders on fundamental principles provides a solid foundation for negotiations, though maintaining multi-stakeholder openness will require continued vigilance and active participation.

Success will depend on balancing celebration of concrete achievements with honest acknowledgment of persistent gaps, particularly in capacity building and digital inclusion. The ability of different communities to communicate effectively across diplomatic and technical divides while maintaining collaborative spirit will be essential.

The discussion reinforced that the multi-stakeholder model is not just a procedural preference but a practical necessity for addressing complex, interconnected challenges of global digital governance. As the international community prepares for December negotiations, the insights from this discussion provide valuable guidance for ensuring WSIS Plus 20 builds on past successes while addressing digital governance challenges of the next two decades.

Theresa Swinehart: Okay, I think that’s the sign that we get to start. Everybody have their headsets on, ready to go? Yes. Good, good, fantastic. Good, good, excellent. First of all, I’d like to thank the Government of Finland for joining us for this. This is fantastic to be able to do this session. My name is Theresa Swinehart. I work with ICANN. And we are very much looking forward to this panel session, which will focus in on the WSIS process and where we are with regards to that. This does build on our discussion that we held at the last IGF in December 2024 and what has been and can be done between now and the upcoming December WSIS Plus 20-related negotiations and what matters to us leading up to that. Clearly, the decisions that are still to come could affect the Internet governance aspects for the next decade. And we really need to look at what practical steps different communities can take between now and December and what their observations are from the past. So with that, I’d like to ask the panelists to briefly introduce themselves. You’ll see that we have a panel from the technical community, from government, civil society and intergovernmental initiatives. And this will be an important observation from each of these sectors for the discussions. So if I could start with the panel to my right for the brief introductions.

Yu Ping Chan: Thank you so much. So my name is Yu-Ping Chan. I lead digital engagements and partnerships at the United Nations Development Programme.

Jarno Suruela: Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Jarno Suruela. I’m Undersecretary of State for International Trade at the Finnish Foreign Ministry.

Fiona Alexander: Hi. Nice to see everyone again. Fiona Alexander. I’m a professor at American University in Washington, D.C.

Kurtis Lindqvist: I’m Kris Lindqvist. I’m the President and CEO of ICANN.

Lacina Kone: I am Lacina Koné. I am the CEO and Director General of Smart Africa, a Pan-African organization based in Kigali.

Theresa Swinehart: Fantastic. Very good. Thank you, everybody. Now, we have four sections to today’s session in a limited amount of time. So we will go through each of them, and we do have a poll as well. So that will add to the excitement. So on the first part that we really want to talk about is understanding WSIS Plus 20 and what it is. It’s in the 20-year review process at this point and the commitments made between 2003 and 2005 and building on a more inclusive development-oriented information society. What would be very good to hear from the panelists is to start discussing the scope of that process, who’s involved, what’s at stake, and how different communities can still contribute. So with that, question one, I’ll go over to Yuping. UNDP is one of the lead co-facilitators of the Geneva Action Plan. If you could just walk us through the mandate for WSIS Plus 20, what deliverables are expected, timelines that you have in place, and the broad range of stakeholders engaged meaningfully.

Yu Ping Chan: That would be great. Thank you so much Theresa. So I think a lot of us have been following this WSIS process for a number of years and for those who are not as up to speed on some of the intricacies of UN processes, which I agree are very long and very complicated, in essence what will be happening this year at the end of the year is that there will be the adoption of the WSIS plus 20 review. So this will be the second review that’s conducted by the member states of the United Nations General Assembly of the outcome documents that Theresa had mentioned, the 2003-2005 Tunis and Geneva outcomes of the WSIS summits themselves. So the question here is how will member states shape this eventual review to reflect some of the ongoing discussions that are happening around digital, both at the United Nations as well as other international forums? Will the WSIS action lines that have actually been established to implement the original WSIS outcomes still suffice to cover the breadth and the multitude of the global digital discussions and developments since then? And do the institutions and processes that were set up through the WSIS, such as the Internet Governance Forum that brings us all together today, still be maintained, updated, refined? You know, are they still fit for purpose? And how do the member states reflect on all the conversations that have taken place, the developments so far in the last 20 years? The process has been actually, as I mentioned, quite complex. There have been a number of UN agencies that have been involved in drafting Secretary-General’s reports. The ITU, the UNESCO colleagues have also had consultation processes that culminated in a number of submissions to the Secretary itself. The Secretary-General will be putting forward a report, the timing of which is a little bit unclear, that will summarize some of these ongoing conversations as an input for the consideration of the member states. And, as some of you have already been involved in, there are ongoing consultations that have been held in forums such as the IGF, such as the Paris Summit, the Paris Conference that was convened by UNESCO just a couple of weeks ago. And then in two weeks, at the high-level WSIS event that is convened by ITU, UNDP, UNESCO and UNCTAD, which is an annual forum where, again, we gather stakeholders to really talk about what we see as the progress made through WSIS and then the future going forward as well. There will be a number of occasions where it will be important to hear the stakeholder point of view because part of the WSIS and the outcomes of the WSIS and the reason why the process endured so long and is something that has really been able to carry through some of these outcome documents in very concrete ways is the commitment of the multi-stakeholder community and the network that has developed. It is important that as stakeholders we continue to be engaged in this process and by saying this I also include the UN system because for us we as UNDP see the WSIS action lines and the WSIS process as very important in translating guidance that is given by the Member States into actionable outcomes that are focused on delivery to countries and to communities that we serve. So in the context of ongoing negotiations at the United Nations, the conclusion of the Global Digital Compact just last year, how then do we reflect these sort of developments into the WSIS action lines, into the WSIS review, reflecting on the fact that the principles that were agreed 20 years ago in Geneva and Tunis remain as relevant today as they were 20 years ago. So that’s sort of the opening context where I really hope that stakeholders will continue to have conversations such as in the IGF and in other institutional forums to maintain the importance of the multi-stakeholder approach as embodied at the heart of WSIS itself. Thank you.

Theresa Swinehart: You really highlight the subject stakeholder and the multi-stakeholder dimension of all of this in the different subject areas. Thank you. Jarno, first of all, Finland, thank you so much for co-hosting this and by example also from government engagement in the process, what steps can governments take to ensure that really all regions, not just traditional actors, are meaningfully included in this WSIS plus 20 process?

Jarno Suruela: I think governments are like the one of Finland, so we are doing a lot together with different actors, organizations and mechanisms. And I think through the recent Global Digital Compact, the UN is better placed than ever to foster multi-stakeholder cooperation on digital matters and to leverage digital technologies for sustainable development. We believe that the GDC and WSIS are highly complementary and should be implemented in sync with each other. This is also to guarantee that everybody will be then on board. For us, the IGF is the primary multi-stakeholder forum for shaping international digital policy and Internet governance at the UN level. A clear indication of its success are over 160 national, regional and youth initiatives of the IGF. It has also become an important platform for discussing emerging digital issues such as AI. And Finland, so we are of course strongly supporting the IGF. We have given financial support to the IGF throughout its existence, being one of the all-time top contributors and we encourage of course other actors to step up their support to the IGF. In these geopolitical circumstances of today, I think it’s even more important to support and enhance the multi-stakeholder model on internet governance, which in essence empowers the various stockholders and enhances resilience of our common internet structure. And I think fragmentation of internet poses a danger to actualization of universal human rights, international trade, and global geopolitical stability. But I think this thing, so how we can reach everybody and do good for everybody, is that we have to of course address the digital divide. And the majority of the world’s population do not yet have meaningful and safe access to the internet, which requires urgent action. And breaching this digital divide is not only about affordable connectivity, it requires also investments in skills and competencies and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms online. And we want to develop new technologies and the internet by respecting democratic values and principles. Still I think the WSIS 20 years review should highlight the need to focus on trusted connectivity and the free, open, global, interoperable and secure internet. And the review is also an important opportunity to renew and strengthen the IGF mandate, including by ensuring a more sustainable financial basis from the regular UN budget that such a global, inclusive effort deserves and needs. So to conclude, I think we are doing a lot.

Fiona Alexander: Yeah, I would agree. And thank you for your observations for an IGF. One needs a sustainable budget. One needs to be able to bridge all stakeholders around the globe and be as inclusive. So I think those are important elements coming into the WSIS 20 aspect. Fiona, from your perspective, you’ve had quite a bit of experience in this as well. What areas and where is the input most needed before the WSIS 20 outcome is finalized? And how can we make sure that those inputs reflect a diverse global perspective? Thank you, Teresa, and thanks for the invitation and for the question. And I think it’s important to keep in mind, you kind of laid out a lot of the stuff that’s going to be happening across the UN system this year, and it’s a lot of activity. But at the end of the year in December, member states are going to adopt a resolution, and the resolution is going to decide whether or not the IGF continues, and it’s potentially going to update the WSIS action lines, and it’s going to talk about the GDC. And a process that’s been kicked off, there’s been co-facilitators appointed to kind of work with stakeholders and governments to kind of put the base documents together, and those co-facilitators have had some stakeholder consultations, they had a government consultation, which is broadcast on Web TV, or UN Web TV if you wanted to watch it. And then they also have issued an elements paper this past Friday that came out. And I think, you know, there’s a litany of issues, there are substantive issues that are going to be covered that are important to a wide range of the civil society and non-government stakeholders, whether it’s getting people connected, whether it’s ensuring human rights online, whether it’s dealing with AI and digital governance issues. But I think there’s one issue set that I think people are sort of united around from the civil society perspective, and that’s making sure that, you know, what I at least personally think is one of the biggest hallmark achievements of the WSIS process is opening up the conversation so that all stakeholders are considered. And you know, we saw last year, unfortunately, in the Global Digital Compact process, the GDC process, that the systems in New York are not nearly as open as UNDP or ITU or other expert agencies of the UN have become. They originally weren’t 20 years ago either, right, and they’ve made a lot of effort to do that. And so I think the challenge that we have before us this year is to make sure that the process that’s going to unfold this year has a real voice and gives real space for people to provide input into that process. And the two co-facilitators and the agenda they’ve laid out and the timeline and the schedule seems to be allowing that, which I think is a great outcome and a great improvement. There was a group of stakeholders originating in civil society and others that signed on that have submitted a couple of letters giving some very specific recommendations and suggestions for how to allow for that engagement. And so far, we’re seeing positive movement in that, so I think that that’s good. But we shouldn’t take that for granted, and I think people should always be pushing to make sure that everyone’s in the room and everyone has a say. I think conversations here at IGF are helpful, conversations that are going to be happening at UNDP, that are going to be happening at ITU in a few weeks in Geneva. These are all going to be great things. But these conversations that the co-facilitators are going to lead and actually having conversations that are not just people giving empty statements and actually seeing what they say and provide reflected in the documents and discussed are going to be an important next step. And I think that’s what we want to make sure happens going forward for the rest of this year until we get to that final decision point where governments adopt a resolution in December.

Theresa Swinehart: for where the next question goes. And I can only echo that we’ve come a long way from 20 years ago. There was these kinds of panels, these kinds of discussions, were not normal conversations that we would usually have. And so I think these opportunities of inclusivity of all stakeholders and subject areas has lended to some really core results. Which brings us to the second section of this session about where WSIS outputs have shown an impact. We’ve talked about WSIS has produced different frameworks and dialogues and some tangible changes including stakeholders at the table in discussions discussing subject areas and and providing factual subject expertise into different conversations. Which outputs though have been effective and which ones still need support is an important part of this conversation. So with that I’m going to turn it over to Kurtis actually about where have WSIS-related initiatives such as DNSSEC or internationalized domain names demonstrated lasting value, particularly for the underserved regions, and where are there still gaps? Where can we still do some work?

Kurtis Lindqvist: Thank you Theresa. So I think you’re right as was mentioned during the WSIS and IGF processes there’s been a lot of talk about where the internet has been or where there was development or gaps to be filled, such as security in the domain name system, universal access or global region access. And DNSSEC is a very concrete success story. It was globally identified that there were weaknesses in the domain name system. These were addressed through work in the IETF to create the technical standards, city building, community building through the IGF and the multi-stakeholder awareness raising, adaptation. And this wasn’t developed by top-down mandates, this came from this realization from the technical communities, from the work here and elsewhere, really that this was a problem that needed to be addressed to create a reliability and trust in the system. And through persistent cooperation engagement Rich, and accessibility includes linguistic accessibility, and that includes in the DNS. We have seen this being evolved over the years and developed against standardization done throughout the IETF, but where we now today have a technical system in IDNs, which covers the domain name system for non-Latin scripts, Arabic, Cyrillic, Chinese, other non-Latin scripts like Swedish, my native language, and we also see a lot of work being pushed over into the universal acceptance that we go beyond the domain name system and we start talking about applications supporting these scripts in a way that we haven’t had before. Technical standards have been done, we have them, and now the universal acceptance part is to get these adopted and really used in all the world’s applications, again, something that has been discussed and pushed through the awareness and awareness-raising in the IGF sessions, in the VSYS context, about how important this is. We as ICANN have done a lot of work and outreach around this as well. I think this showcased this last point a little bit about where there are still gaps, and the gap is not necessarily always about capability, we have the technical capability, it’s about ongoing alignment and work through that we build on these capabilities and make them accessible everywhere, and we continue to do the work on coordination through rolling out the DNSSEC around operators around the world, and we also see that where this cooperative effort fails or stagnates, that’s when we start seeing fragmentation, which is a bad thing, and we see a lack of progress. And I think VSYS plus 20 really needs to draw a clear distinction here that the internet, actually the technical solutions work when they are supported by this long-term coordination that we have seen as part of the IGF, as part of the VSYS process. So the bottom line is really this, that the VSYS output so far has delivered a lot of positive examples of work when the multi-stakeholder model has been put into practice and concrete action, and the VSYS plus 20 should really preserve and protect this, because this is what has been delivering, and I think if we start upsetting this, we risk seeing continued delivery as we heard from the panels in the first section, we should really not try to bypass this, but build on what we have and continue this to ensure continued deployment.

Theresa Swinehart: Thank you. Thank you. And that does really tie into the first part of making sure we bridge into the south.

Lacina Kone: Thank you very much, Theresa, for the questions, and thank you for inviting Smart Africa. At Smart Africa, a coalition of over 40 countries, African governments, partners, civil society dedicated to transforming Africa into a single digital market, together we represent over 1.1 billion populations, united around just one vision, an integrated, sovereign and inclusive digital Africa. Our mission is to convert WSIS commitments into immeasurable progress. By saying that, excuse me, over the past decade, you know, we’ve drawn three core lessons. Number one is a continental ownership that creates leverage. With a direct endorsement from African head of the state, digital development has become a political imperative for all nations. Flagship priorities like a broadband strategy developed together with Senegal, digital identity developed together with the Benin, cybersecurity with the Cote d’Ivoire, cloud infrastructure and champions are championed nationally and regionally with a regional perspective, thereby reflecting a shift from a fragmented project to a shared continental ambition. Number two of what we actually drawn is a policy framework must deliver real result. Through initiative like a Smart Africa Trust Alliance, which is a digital ID interoperability among nations. the Smart Africa Digital Academy which is for capacity building, the Smart Africa Backbone which actually calls every single country in Africa to be interconnected to at least two of its neighbors and other relevant initiatives. We have moved from policy ideas to operational pilots and regional implementation. These are not just a future aspiration, they are a working model. Number three, and the last one, is the multi-stakeholder cooperation it works if it’s rooted in African need. Our digital scholarship funds created back in 2018, today we’ve actually trained more than 90 students in a master’s degree in digital transformation at different universities in Africa. And our data governance framework which is actually running in Senegal and Ghana and so forth, and our harmonized regulatory blueprints are developed not just with the government but also civil society, academia, and private sector, both African and global. So WSIS gives us the vision, Smart Africa is building the bridge.

Theresa Swinehart: Thank you. That’s so well articulated, I have to say, between the continental ownership, the ambition, but also importantly taking policy and how does one operationalize that in a way that’s rooted in the local community needs, which are very distinct from different communities to each other. So we’re going to run a little experiment here, we’re going to see how this works. Ah, it did work, we have a slide up, fantastic. So much of this work has involved contributions across different sectors, including the private sector. And what we’d like to do is just get a quick read from the room, including the Zoom attendees, which WSIS-related initiatives do you think need greater support today? So from the audience, I’m going to ask for a show of hands, and Becky, I think you’re going to work magic in the Zoom room, is that right? Something to that effect? Yes, the poll’s up in the Zoom room, so I’ll let you know. So for the first question, the IGF, so the question is, does it need greater support? So first one, the IGF is a globally accessible platform for dialogue. Is that a yes? Okay. Sense of the room? Very good, okay, excellent. And online so far that has 8%. in the zoom room that that one has eight percent oh wonderful okay very good let’s keep track of this okay for the second one um digital capacity building in under-resourced regions this one just pulled ahead at 41 okay excellent okay thank you open technical standards and cross-border interoperability okay it’s a little less okay maybe because it’s working better than it was and uh zero percent for online so zero percent okay that’s interesting so i wonder whether 20 years ago that might have been a different result maybe it’s a demonstration of how things have evolved over time universal acceptance including support for multilingual internet infrastructure okay yes a bit yes very good and actually online this is our second runner up at 35 oh my gosh okay very good and for the last one cyber security collaboration through multi-stakeholder approaches okay very good 12 percent 12 percent oh 16 16 percent okay okay that’s very interesting um some of the areas 20 years ago or 15 or 10 years ago might have had a different sector but it certainly does show where greater support is needed today and also the cross-sectorial and the regional aspects that we want to take a look at fantastic okay so going into the next section here we’re going to focus in on what can still be done before december now december being when we look at the negotiations in new york and the conversations that will be happening which will hopefully be as inclusive as possible but what work do we need to undertake in order to demonstrate the value of what needs to be done next so with that how can government civil society and the technical community really help shape that and i’m going to turn to you first for this what are some of the most critical inputs or messages that government should be prioritizing now particularly from those regions that have not traditionally been represented in these global internet policy discussions and you touched on that earlier in your remarks and we’ve certainly heard about it from the others

Jarno Suruela: yeah i i think we have to focus there on the opportunities and try to give also the positive messages and i think I think there are so many things that are quite obvious for us, but still we should try to keep on repeating them. For example, as we know, digitalization accelerates progress towards the sustainable development goals. Digitalization is also a means to strengthen the economy, mobilize domestic resources, increase private investments, improve citizens’ welfare and increase gender equality. Also, I think that digitalization has proven to accelerate the clean transition. But still, we also have to talk about the other side of the thing. Coming back to the topic of this digital divide, it remains a wide concern. There are 2.6 billion people lacking access and significant disparities between nations. The gender gap remains a significant concern, hindering women’s position in the digital economy. For Finland, that is one of the top priorities. In this sense, we are trying to work with different organizations. I think addressing the current digital divide will help us to get back on track when it comes to Agenda 2030 and the majority of SDG targets. Globally, of course, we are still quite far from reaching the target of universal connectivity as set out by the Agenda 2030. At the national level, especially in developing countries, significant gaps remain between urban and rural areas. As I said already, the gender digital divide is still wide. I think a strong focus on trusted connectivity and free, open, global, interoperable, stable and secure Internet, as well as multi-stakeholder Internet governance underpinning this. are essential in the review and they are important messages. This action aligns the perspectives related to new technologies that are essential for the development of the information society should be also considered more comprehensively than before. This includes AI, high-performance computing, quantum technology, semiconductor technology, mobile networks and photophonic, for example. Quite a number of items still on the table.

Theresa Swinehart: A lot of items and new subject areas as well. Thank you, that’s very helpful. Fiona, from your perspective, in light also what we’ve heard from a government perspective, what advice would you offer to smaller or under-resourced organizations aiming to participate? In that, how might they also liaise with some of their governments in relation to helping inform those conversations?

Fiona Alexander: Sure, I think it’s a good question. Also, I wanted to comment on the poll because I was struck actually, if I read the results correctly, that the capacity building one might have been the highest, got the strongest online and in the room vote. I found that really interesting because in my recollection, the original idea for WSIS came from a 1998 ITU Plenipot resolution and development and connectivity was the basis of that resolution. It was the basis of calling for the summit in the New York process and undergirds the entire five years of the WSIS process. I think it’s great that that continues and I think it’s important that we keep that in mind. At the end of the day, I know I haven’t been a former government official, we can spend a lot of time arguing about words in a room, but at the end of the day, this is about getting people connected and getting people to do the things that you’re doing and to do that. I found the poll really interesting actually and it was kind of cool. To answer your specific question, I think as I said, the process that’s unfolding throughout the rest of the calendar year, the co-facilitators so far have been making great efforts to give people the space to have a say. So they had a stakeholder session, they had this elements paper they put out, the comments for that are due July 15th. I cannot believe that something has happened so quickly in the UN system, but I think when I listened to the government stakeholder session, there was a proposal made from the EU that was originally a Swiss proposal for the creation of an informal stakeholder, informal multi-stakeholder feedback group of some kind. I’ll get the exact name wrong. And that was just a few weeks ago and they’ve already announced they’re doing it. I literally have never seen something happen that fast. So that means that there’s going to be a group of stakeholders that the co-facilitators are going to run things past, I guess, and get input from. So once that group gets announced, I would also encourage people to find the people in your stakeholder group that are on that because I think talking to those people can be helpful. Also talking to your individual government back at home to understand what they’re doing and how they’re going to participate and how you can inform their process is equally as important. But I am more optimistic than I was last year that it looks like in this year’s process there’s going to be opportunities for you to provide your own input, whether it’s online or whether it’s through written submissions or whether it’s through working with like-minded groups and doing others. So I would encourage everyone to take advantage of that and keep pushing for more, because if you don’t push, it doesn’t happen. So don’t accept the status quo and push for more, but you have to show up and you have to actually show up and participate. So I would encourage everyone that cares about these issues to take advantage and to do that at all the events that are going to unfold over the course of the year.

Theresa Swinehart: It’s a really good point not to take it for granted. It took a lot of work by a lot of governments and a lot of stakeholders to get to this point, so take advantage and don’t miss these opportunities and let’s keep that going. Lacina, as we approach the final phase of the WSIS Plus 20 review and what’s most pressing with regards to infrastructure policy gaps that should still be addressed, particularly from your perspective and from the regional development and digital development and coordination in Africa, you touched on some really core operational aspects in your introductory remarks, so we’d love to hear a little bit more around that.

Lacina Kone: Thank you very much, Theresa. The WSIS 20, if I need to really look at the most pressing regional infrastructure and policy gap that the WSIS 20 should be addressing, first of all, if I had to rewind the tape back in 1999 when the WSIS was being created, when they talk about connectivity, I would have said meaningful connectivity, because the connectivity led us to affordability challenge as well in Africa. So the WSIS 20 really must address four persistent gaps that constrain Africa’s digital future, which is meaningful connectivity, regulations, skills and sovereignty. I will start with meaningful connectivity. Too many African countries still depend on external routes. for local internet traffic. We must complete the regional backbone, increase IXPs, very important, and reinforce initiatives like the Smart Africa Backbone that require every single country to be connected, at least two of its neighbors, and as well as the One Africa Network. Not only that, we must focus also on affordability, because today, if you look at usage gap today in Africa is over 40%, which means the infrastructure of telecommunication is available, but people are not using it for four reasons. One, affordability. Two, local context. Three, capacity building, because they don’t really understand. Four, cyber hygiene. So I’m going to move to number two, regulatory harmonization. Africa has over 50 digital law, but little interoperability, and I was very surprised in the poll, you know, we had a very few, like a 10% only, but interoperability. So investors and innovators, they need clarity. No one’s like unpredictability. So the WSIS 20 plus 20 should champion continental legal conversions through agile, right-based framework aligned with Africa’s internet governance blueprint. Number three, capacity and inclusion. Less than 10% of adults in several countries in Africa possess basic digital skills. And now, we have now, it’s not enough to be digitally savvy, but you could also be AI ignorant. That’s the reality. Absolutely, you could be a PhD, but if you’re not adapted to AI, we have another gap. So AI gap. So through Smart Africa Digital Academy and the Smart Africa Scholarship Funds, we are investing in both grassroots literacy and high-level technical training, including AI, cyber security, and quantum readiness. Number four, and the last one, which is a sovereignty and institutional coordination. Africa must govern its data, digital assets, initiatives like a Smart Africa Trust Alliance and the Council of Africa Internet Governance Authority, CAIG. Mbenga are essential to asserting regional leadership and ensuring that global governance reflects African reality. WSIS 20-plus must not only review past gaps but equip regions like Africa to co-lead the next decade of digital governance, inclusive, secure and sovereign. Thank you.

Theresa Swinehart: Thank you so much. I love your four very concrete areas. That’s really very thoughtful and also a good way to go into the conversations. Kurtis, what contributions should the technical community bring forward, whether through data case studies or coordination examples to ensure that the WSIS 20-plus outcome reflects how the internet actually works?

Kurtis Lindqvist: We often talk about the IGF and the WSIS 20-plus and what has been achieved. Hidden in that I think we forget quite a bit of what actually has been achieved, all the success stories. And I think maybe to what my colleagues here just referred to about the pole and the lack of engagement in the need for global standards, maybe we’ve just been a little bit too successful because the internet has been a phenomenal success because it’s built on the existing global standards that have been produced through multi-stakeholder processes and we’re taking it for granted. And I think that’s a success story that maybe we should talk more about, is that the reason you can do that is exactly because of the global interoperable standards that enables this. And the flip side of that is that it also makes us to a large extent forget what happens when the opposite occurs, when we see fragmentation and we see how we devalue the access to the internet. But having that fragmentation, by having silos, which is something that we actually built away from. I’m old enough to have been here before that and then what we saw before that. And when we had the silos and the internet unified this and created a much more valuable network for everyone that allowed all this digital economy to flourish, built upon these standards. And I think that we also forget about the work in the multi-stakeholder model and WSIS 20 outcomes have operationally meant in what we have deployed with this. We talked about the underserved regions, and we have seen a lot of build-up with IXPs as the Director General mentioned. Africa has seen a phenomenal explosion in IXPs in the last 20 years. That doesn’t mean there is more to be done, but we have also come quite a far way, and the rest of the world as well. We have seen root server instances. One of the things we talked about in the early IGFs was how do we build a more resilient and better infrastructure in underserved regions. In doing so, we have deployed literally thousands of root server instances around the world to make sure that the Internet is stable, better, more secure in those regions. ICANN is one of these operators, and there is today almost 2,000 of these instances around the world. We operate 240 of them in 70 countries. We can show how this has improved performance where we saw, for example, one of the data points we have is when we deployed this in Egypt, how traffic became much more localized. The same that we have seen as IXPs has been deployed, we see traffic becoming localized, both for benefit of resilience and security of the network, but also for improved user performance and again, stimulating the local economy. For all of the G7 countries and also for any other country, by the way, this infrastructure really matters, and this has been a showcase of what we have established so far. As we heard, there is more that can be done, but we tend to forget what we have also achieved. This has really improved how the Internet works. As I mentioned before, the multilingual support and universal access work has come a very far way. Again, there is much more to do, but this has come out. We should celebrate these success stories and actually highlight this, what we have done. We at ICANN together with Internet Society produced the footprints of the 20 years of the IGF, which is a paper that really summarizes all this achievement that the technical community, that business has delivered over these years. I think that we have maybe not done enough of reflecting on our own successes and talk about this. Saying that, I also think what we should bring with us in this and for the forward is that language matters and having clarity in language is very important. We hear talk about sovereignty or control, which are two words that can mean very different things to different people. If I hear them or someone hears them, they probably believe that we are talking about fragmentation. To others, these might be words that have other meanings, but we have to be clear on what we are trying to achieve, what was the ultimate goal and what are the risks and we break this. The technical community has since before IGF in the early business process been engaged to provide the input and safeguards to explain what the consequences are of decisions to ensure that we can prevent a breakage or siloing or fragmentation of exactly the Internet values that really create this value creation and provided all this economic growth over the last 20 years. and we really need to reinforce this success record and showcase that it is these fundamental principles that the technical community have highlighted, safeguarded and provided the understanding of over 20 years that is at the core of this and continues to provide a value and we need to continue to make these points all between now and December and really really reiterate how important these are for the success of the internet in the future just like it’s been for the last past 20 years.

Yu Ping Chan: Thank you. I think those are some really concrete examples of where we can actually share those stories. Yuping, I know that you had wanted to also offer your thoughts for this so please go ahead. I asked Teresa to give me the floor because I’m going to take off my UNDP hat and sort of say this as a former diplomat at the UN hat. I think there’s a big gap and forgive me all the other MFA diplomats in the room that are from New York. There’s a big gap between the New York community and those of us gathered in the room that have been working on these issues for a long time. There is a tendency when you put resolutions to the General Assembly to oversimplify, to stick in compromised language where you don’t really understand the implications of what the language means and then to really put a political context on terms that are otherwise accepted or actually understood by the technical community. So for instance Curtis mentioned sovereignty and control. In the UN context that has a very loaded meaning and even the use of those terms would actually be debated and some shadows seen into the use of that terminology that could then have implications in terms of the negotiations. So my appeal to all of the stakeholders that are really engaging in this conversation and I really applaud the fact that there have been so many good concrete ideas that we are all united behind in bringing forward to the WSIS review is to keep it clear, simple, actionable when it comes to the UN processes to word it in language that diplomats are already using so that they understand certain things. So the reason why for instance capacity building drew such a high vote is because that is the language that is now pervasive in the UN when it comes to sustainable development and really equipping countries of the global majority to have that kind of ability. So really I think the way we’re starting to frame this conversation into what appeals to the countries of the world in a united collective effort around digital versus sort of taking an approach that might be seen as a little bit more divisive is very important. I would also say that there seems to be a tendency to write off the WSIS as being dusty, out of date, that we have new developments now that must supersede the WSIS but precisely as Fiona said the fact that we’re still here talking about capacity building 20 years on is a testament to how enduring these principles are and what I think we need to make clear is that in the next 20 years going forward these foundations remain as valid as in the past today and going forward as well. I would say, and this way I put back on my UN agency hat and say that a lot of you are aware of the conversations around the UN system where it’s a very difficult time for all of us and in this moment of difficulty I think the greater guidance you can give to the system to double down on what has worked to focus on delivery and impact particularly for the communities that we serve is important and so like that would be my ask to you as UN agency so for instance very concretely sort of following my own recommendation to be clear and simple in the elements paper that the WSIS co-facilitators have put forward there is no reference to the high-level segment of the WSIS forum that’s occurring very soon in a couple of weeks that to us UN agencies ITU, UNDP, UNESCO, UNCTAD has been a cornerstone of the success of the WSIS action line so we would ask that this be reflected again in the WSIS review in the elements paper as well so very concrete recommendations to how the UN system should continue implementing these areas of work and the guidance from member states will be particularly important.

Theresa Swinehart: Thank you so much that almost led into the closing part but I don’t want to skip the opportunity to open it very briefly if there’s any questions from the audience and Becky I don’t know if you have anybody in the zoom room or anybody wants to have a question or their own observations about what would be useful no okay should I jump to the closing yeah we can we can jump to closing okay okay so we’re not closing yet we’re not letting our panelists loose but Yoping had sort of kicked it off a little bit but I’m going to ask each panelist to offer one specific step their community should take to help shape a globally useful outcome of the WSIS plus 20. Now by useful it could be anything practical, pragmatic, anything that they think is useful. We’ve already heard conversations not in New York are often different than conversations outside of New York so those are some examples practical solutions but to the panelists for the audience if you want them to walk away with one action and one thing what would it be and so I’m going to turn to you first from a government perspective. Well I’ll start with you Jarno.

UNKNOWN: I think it’s important for us to think about what it is that we’re doing and how we’re doing it and how we’re doing it and how we’re doing it Well, obviously I have to focus on the political aspects then. Of course, yes. I think a major challenge in this process is how to maintain digital development inclusive from the regional level to the global level as well as to maintain the development orientation of technology and its focus on human rights also.

Jarno Suruela: This is a key challenge which all stakeholders need to address.

Theresa Swinehart: Thank you. I hope everybody heard that and wrote it down. Fiona, over to you. What would you take as an action for everybody?

Fiona Alexander: Sure. I think there are lots of different things we could all point to. But if I’m looking for one very specific thing, I think I would say to people in different stakeholder groups that they should continue to demand their seat at the table. That means you have to actually show up when you get the seat. And I think that we’ve seen some progress this year. Probably still not enough, but some small steps. So we should acknowledge that and we should show up and we should take advantage of it and we should continue to push to see the really truly multi-stakeholder environment that we want to see.

Theresa Swinehart: Thank you. Kurtis, from the technical side.

Kurtis Lindqvist: I think the technical community really must continue to contribute evidence and tangible implementation, coordination outcomes and data that shows what has worked. That’s really our responsibility to bring to the table. And this can’t happen in isolation, as you just heard. The governments and civil society needs to bring their inputs forward rooted in the experiences and not just declarations to bring these tangible examples of what works. And I think this is something that will only succeed if the outcomes reflect the systems that are already making the Internet works. And we don’t need new structures. We need continued collaboration and a clear commitment to the model that has actually delivered.

Theresa Swinehart: Thank you. I think those are really, we need to show that very carefully. Yuping, you shared some observations, but I suspect you might have some more.

Yu Ping Chan: This is a tricky moment for me, because on behalf of the UN system, we have to reiterate the fact that we are guided by the member states. And so just looking to the member states, but also asking that the member states listen to the stakeholder community. Because, again, I’ve said this before, I said this, I think, in a number of discussions before, multistakeholderism is not natural to the UN system itself. It is a multilateral organization, but multistakeholderism, the way it’s been developed in 20 years and the way we do discussions here at the IGF, is not the way how New York does things and perhaps New York needs to adapt to that, but exactly as Fiona says, showing up, saying this and demanding that amount of accountability for this over and over again is how we make the changes. Again, truly, the fact that we now have these changes in the way the WSISCO facilitators are approaching multistakeholderism is a testament to the fact that many people have showed up through the GDC process and now are showing up more and more than ever before.

Theresa Swinehart: Thank you. And Lacina, from your perspective?

Lacina Kone: From my perspective, multipolarity is a geopolitical fact of our time, undeniable and irreversible, but multilateralism is a choice. It is a conscious decision to cooperate across divide, to build trust among ourselves and to shape a fairer global order, not despite our differences, but because of them.

Theresa Swinehart: That’s very well said. Thank you. Thank you. Not only is the light flashing red, so I’m being told it needs to sort of call it a wrap, but we’ve heard a wide range of perspectives and observations of what has been transformative over the past 20 years, but also where we have gaps and where we need to go. The question we were going to pose to you or comments to seek would be what would help you and your organization in WSIS Plus 20 before December. So I would ask that you walk away from this conversation thinking about that. Encourage you to sign up for different things to help inform or get materials. For example, we have a WSIS Plus 20 outreach mailing list with updates. Everybody’s sharing different information. There’s also other dialogues happening. Engage in those. Provide your input and provide your data. And as has been reiterated here, the process is open. Take those opportunities and engage and participate. Share your stories, share your observations, where you’ve seen pragmatic results, but also where there’s gaps and where we can work to improve things. So with that, I would thank everybody for joining and participating, and let’s make the WSIS Plus 20 a successful conversation and outcome. So thank you, everybody. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach is fundamental to WSIS success and must be preserved

Speakers

– Yu Ping Chan
– Jarno Suruela
– Fiona Alexander
– Lacina Kone

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach remains at the heart of WSIS and must be maintained in the review process

IGF is the primary multi-stakeholder forum for international digital policy, with over 160 national and regional initiatives

The New York UN systems are not as open as expert agencies, creating challenges for stakeholder participation

Multi-stakeholder cooperation works when rooted in African needs, demonstrated through digital scholarship programs and governance frameworks

Summary

All speakers strongly emphasize that the multi-stakeholder model has been central to WSIS achievements and must be protected and strengthened in the WSIS Plus 20 process, though they acknowledge challenges in implementation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Digital divide remains a critical challenge requiring urgent attention

Speakers

– Jarno Suruela
– Lacina Kone

Arguments

2.6 billion people still lack internet access, with significant gender gaps and urban-rural disparities

Four persistent gaps constrain Africa’s digital future: meaningful connectivity, regulatory harmonization, skills development, and digital sovereignty

Summary

Both speakers highlight the persistent digital divide as a major concern, with specific focus on connectivity gaps, gender disparities, and the need for meaningful rather than basic access

Topics

Development | Human rights

Stakeholders must actively participate and demand their seat at the table

Speakers

– Fiona Alexander
– Yu Ping Chan

Arguments

Stakeholders must continue to demand their seat at the table and actually show up when given opportunities

Member states must listen to stakeholder communities while stakeholders demand accountability

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that meaningful participation requires active engagement from stakeholders who must both demand access and follow through with actual participation when opportunities arise

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Language and communication clarity are crucial for effective UN processes

Speakers

– Yu Ping Chan
– Kurtis Lindqvist

Arguments

Stakeholders should use clear, simple, actionable language that diplomats already understand to avoid misinterpretation

Language matters in UN processes, with terms like ‘sovereignty’ and ‘control’ having different meanings to different communities

Summary

Both speakers recognize that terminology and communication approaches significantly impact the effectiveness of UN negotiations, with technical and diplomatic communities often interpreting the same terms differently

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of concrete, operational achievements in internet infrastructure development, with Lindqvist highlighting technical infrastructure successes and Kone focusing on policy implementation that delivers tangible results

Speakers

– Kurtis Lindqvist
– Lacina Kone

Arguments

Africa has seen phenomenal growth in Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) over the past 20 years

Policy frameworks must deliver real results through operational pilots and regional implementation, not just aspirations

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers connect digital development directly to broader sustainable development goals and emphasize the importance of high-level political commitment to drive digital transformation

Speakers

– Jarno Suruela
– Lacina Kone

Arguments

Digital divide addressing is crucial for getting back on track with Agenda 2030 and SDG targets

Continental ownership creates leverage, with African heads of state making digital development a political imperative

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize the complexity and long-term significance of the WSIS Plus 20 process, highlighting the need for coordinated action across multiple stakeholders and agencies

Speakers

– Yu Ping Chan
– Theresa Swinehart

Arguments

The process involves multiple UN agencies drafting reports and stakeholder consultations, with member states shaping the eventual review

WSIS decisions could affect Internet governance for the next decade, requiring practical steps from different communities

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected consensus

Technical standards and interoperability may be working better than expected

Speakers

– Kurtis Lindqvist
– Audience poll results

Arguments

Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) have evolved to support non-Latin scripts, improving linguistic accessibility

Poll results showing low priority for open technical standards and cross-border interoperability (0% online, minimal room response)

Explanation

The low poll response for technical standards support suggests that 20 years of WSIS work may have been successful in this area, with Lindqvist noting that success might make people take global standards for granted. This represents unexpected consensus that technical interoperability challenges have been largely addressed

Topics

Infrastructure | Sociocultural

Capacity building emerged as the highest priority across all stakeholder groups

Speakers

– All speakers
– Poll participants

Arguments

Poll results showing capacity building in under-resourced regions as top priority (41% online)

Less than 10% of adults in several African countries possess basic digital skills, with new AI literacy gaps emerging

Digital divide addressing is crucial for getting back on track with Agenda 2030 and SDG targets

Explanation

Despite different backgrounds and perspectives, there was unexpected unanimous agreement that capacity building remains the most critical need, suggesting this foundational WSIS principle from 1998 remains as relevant today as it was 20 years ago

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on core WSIS principles including multi-stakeholder governance, the importance of addressing digital divides, the need for active stakeholder participation, and the critical role of capacity building. There was also agreement on procedural challenges, particularly around language barriers between technical and diplomatic communities.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles with constructive alignment on implementation challenges. The agreement spans across different stakeholder groups (government, technical community, civil society, international organizations) and suggests a mature understanding of both achievements and remaining gaps after 20 years of WSIS implementation. This strong consensus provides a solid foundation for the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations, though speakers acknowledge that maintaining multi-stakeholder openness will require continued vigilance and active participation.

Different viewpoints

Terminology and language interpretation in UN processes

Speakers

– Yu Ping Chan
– Kurtis Lindqvist

Arguments

There’s a significant gap between the New York diplomatic community and technical communities working on these issues

Language matters in UN processes, with terms like ‘sovereignty’ and ‘control’ having different meanings to different communities

Summary

Both speakers identify language as a challenge but from different perspectives – Yu Ping Chan focuses on the gap between diplomatic and technical communities and recommends using diplomatic language, while Lindqvist warns that technical communities may interpret certain terms (like sovereignty/control) as suggesting fragmentation

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Limited disagreement on technical standards priority

Speakers

– Kurtis Lindqvist
– Poll results

Arguments

Technical community must continue providing evidence and tangible implementation data showing what works

Explanation

Lindqvist expressed surprise that the poll showed low interest in ‘open technical standards and cross-border interoperability’ (0% online, minimal in-room), suggesting this might indicate success rather than lack of importance. This represents an unexpected disconnect between technical community priorities and audience perception

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on major issues including the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement, need for inclusive processes, digital divide challenges, and IGF sustainability. The primary areas of difference were tactical rather than strategic – focusing on how to communicate effectively with different audiences and how to work within existing UN systems.

Disagreement level

Very low level of substantive disagreement. The speakers demonstrated strong alignment on fundamental principles and goals, with differences mainly in emphasis, approach, and tactical considerations. This high level of consensus suggests a mature, collaborative stakeholder community but may also indicate potential groupthink or lack of diverse perspectives that could strengthen the WSIS Plus 20 process.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of concrete, operational achievements in internet infrastructure development, with Lindqvist highlighting technical infrastructure successes and Kone focusing on policy implementation that delivers tangible results

Speakers

– Kurtis Lindqvist
– Lacina Kone

Arguments

Africa has seen phenomenal growth in Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) over the past 20 years

Policy frameworks must deliver real results through operational pilots and regional implementation, not just aspirations

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers connect digital development directly to broader sustainable development goals and emphasize the importance of high-level political commitment to drive digital transformation

Speakers

– Jarno Suruela
– Lacina Kone

Arguments

Digital divide addressing is crucial for getting back on track with Agenda 2030 and SDG targets

Continental ownership creates leverage, with African heads of state making digital development a political imperative

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize the complexity and long-term significance of the WSIS Plus 20 process, highlighting the need for coordinated action across multiple stakeholders and agencies

Speakers

– Yu Ping Chan
– Theresa Swinehart

Arguments

The process involves multiple UN agencies drafting reports and stakeholder consultations, with member states shaping the eventual review

WSIS decisions could affect Internet governance for the next decade, requiring practical steps from different communities

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Key takeaways

WSIS Plus 20 represents a critical juncture for internet governance, with decisions potentially affecting the next decade of digital policy and the continuation of the IGF

Multi-stakeholder engagement remains fundamental to WSIS success, but there’s a significant gap between New York UN diplomatic processes and technical communities that needs bridging

Technical infrastructure has seen remarkable success over 20 years (DNSSEC, IDNs, IXPs, root servers), demonstrating the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder cooperation

Digital capacity building in under-resourced regions emerged as the highest priority need, reflecting the persistent digital divide affecting 2.6 billion people

Regional ownership and coordination, particularly demonstrated by Smart Africa’s continental approach, proves effective when rooted in local needs

Language and communication clarity is crucial in UN processes, as technical terms can be misinterpreted in political contexts

The Global Digital Compact and WSIS are complementary frameworks that should be implemented together

Success stories from the past 20 years should be celebrated and used as evidence for continued multi-stakeholder approaches

Resolutions and action items

Stakeholders should provide input to the WSIS Plus 20 elements paper by the July 15th deadline

Technical community must continue providing concrete evidence and implementation data showing what works

All stakeholder groups should engage with the informal multi-stakeholder feedback group being established by co-facilitators

Organizations should sign up for WSIS Plus 20 outreach mailing lists and participate in upcoming consultations

Stakeholders should engage with their national governments to inform their WSIS Plus 20 positions

Communities should participate in upcoming events including the high-level WSIS event in Geneva

Stakeholders must continue to demand and show up for their seat at the table in UN processes

Regional organizations should share concrete success stories and operational examples

Technical community should highlight fundamental principles that have enabled internet success over 20 years

Unresolved issues

Sustainable funding for the IGF from the regular UN budget remains uncertain pending December negotiations

The scope and effectiveness of the informal multi-stakeholder feedback group has not been fully defined

Timing and content of the Secretary-General’s report to member states remains unclear

How to effectively bridge the communication gap between New York diplomatic processes and technical communities

Whether WSIS action lines will be updated to reflect current digital developments and the Global Digital Compact

How to ensure meaningful participation from underrepresented regions in the final negotiations

The specific language and commitments that will be included in the December resolution

How to operationalize the complementary relationship between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact

Suggested compromises

Use clear, simple, actionable language that diplomats already understand to avoid technical terms being misinterpreted in political contexts

Frame digital governance conversations around capacity building and sustainable development language that appeals to the global majority of countries

Build on existing successful frameworks rather than creating entirely new structures

Maintain the multi-stakeholder model while adapting it to work better within traditional UN multilateral processes

Focus on concrete, evidence-based examples of what works rather than abstract declarations

Emphasize the complementary nature of WSIS and Global Digital Compact rather than viewing them as competing frameworks

Balance global standards and interoperability with regional sovereignty and local needs

I think there’s a big gap and forgive me all the other MFA diplomats in the room that are from New York. There’s a big gap between the New York community and those of us gathered in the room that have been working on these issues for a long time. There is a tendency when you put resolutions to the General Assembly to oversimplify, to stick in compromised language where you don’t really understand the implications of what the language means and then to really put a political context on terms that are otherwise accepted or actually understood by the technical community.

Speaker

Yu Ping Chan

Reason

This comment exposed a critical structural problem in global internet governance – the disconnect between technical experts who understand the practical implications of policy decisions and the diplomatic community in New York that ultimately makes those decisions. It highlighted how technical terms get politicized and oversimplified in UN processes, potentially undermining effective outcomes.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from discussing what should be done to addressing how to communicate effectively with decision-makers. It provided crucial context for why previous processes may have failed and influenced the final recommendations about showing up and demanding seats at the table. It also validated concerns about language precision that Kurtis had raised earlier.

We often talk about the IGF and the WSIS 20-plus and what has been achieved. Hidden in that I think we forget quite a bit of what actually has been achieved, all the success stories… maybe we’ve just been a little bit too successful because the internet has been a phenomenal success because it’s built on the existing global standards that have been produced through multi-stakeholder processes and we’re taking it for granted.

Speaker

Kurtis Lindqvist

Reason

This reframed the entire discussion by suggesting that the technical community’s success in creating seamless global internet infrastructure has made people forget why those achievements matter. It introduced the paradox that success can lead to complacency and undervaluation of the systems that created that success.

Impact

This comment shifted the tone from focusing on gaps and problems to celebrating achievements and understanding why certain poll results showed low concern for technical standards. It influenced how other panelists framed their closing recommendations, emphasizing the need to showcase concrete successes rather than just identify problems.

Multipolarity is a geopolitical fact of our time, undeniable and irreversible, but multilateralism is a choice. It is a conscious decision to cooperate across divide, to build trust among ourselves and to shape a fairer global order, not despite our differences, but because of them.

Speaker

Lacina Kone

Reason

This philosophical distinction between multipolarity (the reality of multiple power centers) and multilateralism (the choice to cooperate) provided a sophisticated framework for understanding current global dynamics. It elevated the discussion from technical implementation to fundamental questions about how nations choose to engage with each other in digital governance.

Impact

This served as a powerful closing statement that synthesized the entire discussion’s themes about inclusion, cooperation, and the challenges of global coordination. It provided a conceptual framework that tied together the technical, political, and developmental aspects discussed throughout the session.

I found the poll really interesting actually… I was struck actually, if I read the results correctly, that the capacity building one might have been the highest… I found that really interesting because in my recollection, the original idea for WSIS came from a 1998 ITU Plenipot resolution and development and connectivity was the basis of that resolution.

Speaker

Fiona Alexander

Reason

This observation connected current priorities back to WSIS’s original development-focused mandate, suggesting that despite 20 years of progress, the fundamental challenge of digital inclusion remains paramount. It provided historical context that validated current priorities while highlighting persistent challenges.

Impact

This comment helped interpret the poll results and reinforced the development orientation that several panelists emphasized. It influenced the discussion by showing continuity between original WSIS goals and current needs, strengthening arguments for maintaining development focus in WSIS Plus 20.

Continental ownership creates leverage. With a direct endorsement from African head of the state, digital development has become a political imperative for all nations… We have moved from policy ideas to operational pilots and regional implementation. These are not just a future aspiration, they are a working model.

Speaker

Lacina Kone

Reason

This challenged the typical narrative of developing regions as passive recipients of digital development by presenting Africa as an active coordinator of its own digital transformation. It demonstrated how regional coordination can create leverage and move beyond aspirational policies to concrete implementation.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from discussing gaps in underserved regions to showcasing successful regional coordination models. It influenced how other panelists discussed regional development and provided concrete examples of multi-stakeholder cooperation working at scale.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing critical tensions and reframings that elevated the conversation beyond routine policy discussions. Yu Ping Chan’s observation about the New York-technical community gap introduced a meta-level analysis of why internet governance processes struggle, influencing how other panelists approached their recommendations. Kurtis Lindqvist’s ‘victim of our own success’ insight reframed technical achievements from being taken for granted to being celebrated and protected. Lacina Kone’s contributions consistently elevated the discussion from technical implementation to strategic vision, culminating in the multipolarity/multilateralism distinction that provided a philosophical framework for understanding current challenges. Fiona Alexander’s historical contextualization of poll results reinforced the development focus throughout. Together, these comments created a more sophisticated understanding of WSIS Plus 20 challenges – not just as technical or policy problems, but as communication, recognition, and cooperation challenges requiring strategic thinking about how different communities engage with global governance processes.

How can the WSIS action lines be updated to reflect developments since the Global Digital Compact and other recent digital governance initiatives?

Speaker

Yu Ping Chan

Explanation

This is important to ensure WSIS remains relevant and complementary to newer frameworks like the GDC, avoiding duplication while maintaining effectiveness

How can the IGF secure more sustainable financial basis from the regular UN budget?

Speaker

Jarno Suruela

Explanation

Critical for ensuring the long-term viability and global inclusiveness of the IGF as the primary multi-stakeholder forum for internet governance

What specific mechanisms can ensure meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in the New York-based UN processes, which traditionally operate differently from Geneva-based agencies?

Speaker

Yu Ping Chan and Fiona Alexander

Explanation

Essential for bridging the gap between traditional multilateral diplomacy and the multi-stakeholder model that has proven successful in internet governance

How can universal acceptance of internationalized domain names be accelerated beyond technical standards to actual implementation in applications worldwide?

Speaker

Kurtis Lindqvist

Explanation

Important for achieving true linguistic accessibility and inclusion in the global internet infrastructure

What are the most effective approaches to address the 40% usage gap in Africa where telecommunications infrastructure exists but people aren’t using it due to affordability, capacity, and other barriers?

Speaker

Lacina Kone

Explanation

Critical for achieving meaningful connectivity and digital inclusion across the African continent

How can the high-level segment of the WSIS forum be better reflected and integrated into the WSIS+20 review process?

Speaker

Yu Ping Chan

Explanation

Important for ensuring continuity and recognition of successful WSIS implementation mechanisms

What specific data and case studies should the technical community compile to demonstrate internet governance successes over the past 20 years?

Speaker

Kurtis Lindqvist

Explanation

Necessary to provide evidence-based input for WSIS+20 negotiations and prevent fragmentation of successful internet governance models

How can smaller or under-resourced organizations effectively engage with their governments to influence WSIS+20 positions?

Speaker

Fiona Alexander

Explanation

Important for ensuring diverse global perspectives are represented in government positions during the December negotiations

What language and framing strategies work best when communicating technical internet governance concepts to UN diplomats unfamiliar with these issues?

Speaker

Yu Ping Chan

Explanation

Critical for effective communication between technical communities and diplomatic processes to avoid misunderstandings that could lead to problematic policy outcomes