Dynamic Coalition Collaborative Session

Summary

This discussion focused on capacity building for the digital economy, featuring representatives from various Dynamic Coalitions at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The moderator, Rajendra Pratap Gupta, emphasized that capacity building is multidimensional, encompassing not just technical skills but also mindset, governance, and multidisciplinary collaboration across different levels from policymakers to communities with special needs.

The panelists presented diverse perspectives on capacity building challenges. Jutta Croll highlighted the human rights dimension, noting how digital divides are widening into digital literacy divides that require constant updating of educational approaches. Avri Doria from the Schools of Internet Governance emphasized that education requires significant funding and resources, pointing out that capacity building involves both knowledge creation and practical skills for participating in multi-stakeholder processes. Janice Richardson stressed the importance of understanding technology’s impact on society and decision-making, arguing that the issue extends beyond a digital divide to a broader societal divide.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir brought attention to accessibility issues, noting that persons with disabilities remain severely underrepresented in IGF discussions despite being the world’s largest minority. He emphasized the need for knowledge producers to consider accessibility from the outset rather than as an afterthought. Aydan Férdeline discussed digital financial inclusion as a fundamental right, arguing that digital participation is no longer optional but foundational to realizing human rights. Eleni Boursinou highlighted the role of Open Educational Resources (OER) in building inclusive knowledge societies and the importance of critical digital literacy.

Key challenges identified included insufficient funding, the rapid pace of technological change outpacing educational responses, lack of quality standards for training programs, and the need to change societal mindsets about the importance of capacity building. Participants emphasized that solutions require bottom-up approaches, cross-coalition collaboration, and designing services that adapt to users’ needs rather than forcing users to adapt to poorly designed services.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multidimensional nature of capacity building**: The discussion emphasized that capacity building extends beyond technical skills to include mindset changes, governance understanding, institutional maturity, and multidisciplinary collaboration across policy makers, workforce, communities, and people with special needs.

– **Human rights perspective and digital divides**: Panelists highlighted how digital literacy connects to fundamental human rights (non-discrimination, freedom of speech, privacy, access to information) and discussed evolving digital divides – from basic access issues to more complex digital literacy gaps and AI literacy challenges.

– **Accessibility and inclusion challenges**: Significant focus on the need for accessible platforms, services, and educational materials for people with disabilities, with emphasis on “nothing about us without us” and moving beyond tokenism to meaningful participation in decision-making processes.

– **Implementation gaps and funding challenges**: Discussion of the disconnect between policy documents (like the Global Digital Compact) and real-world implementation, with consistent emphasis on the critical need for dedicated funding, political will, and institutional commitment to make capacity building effective.

– **Quality standards and adaptive approaches**: The need for quality standards in training programs, the importance of adapting services to users rather than forcing users to adapt to poorly designed services, and the challenge of keeping pace with rapidly evolving technology.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore capacity building as a foundational element for digital economy participation, bringing together representatives from various Dynamic Coalitions to share perspectives on challenges, gaps, and potential solutions for making digital participation more inclusive and accessible across different populations and contexts.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion began with an optimistic, collaborative tone as panelists shared their expertise and perspectives. However, the tone gradually became more realistic and somewhat pessimistic as speakers acknowledged significant systemic challenges, funding constraints, and implementation gaps. Despite this realism, the session concluded on a more action-oriented note, with calls for concrete steps, cross-coalition collaboration, and individual initiative to drive change from the ground up.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Rajendra Pratap Gupta** – Session moderator and workshop facilitator

– **Jutta Croll** – Representative from DC CRIDE (Dynamic Coalition on Child Rights in the Digital Environment), focuses on children’s rights and human rights perspective

– **Avri Doria** – Representative from DC Schools of Internet Governance, teacher and educator in internet governance

– **Janice Richardson** – Representative from IS3C (Internet Standards, Safety and Security), session co-moderator, expert in internet standards and digital impact on society

– **Dr. Muhammad Shabbir** – Representative from DCAT (Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability), expert on disability rights and accessibility

– **Ayden Férdeline** – Representative from Dynamic Coalition on Financial Inclusion, expert on digital financial inclusion and financial rights

– **Eleni Boursinou** – Representative from OER DC (Open Educational Resources Dynamic Coalition), participated online, expert on open educational resources

– **Gonilla Astbrink** – Training coordinator with the Internet Society Accessibility Standing Group

– **Audience** – Various unidentified audience members who asked questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Wout** – Representative from DC on Internet Standard Security and Safety, asked questions about capacity building and IGF structure

– **Larry** – Audience member who commented on UN Convention on the Rights of the Child violations

– **Emmanuel Orok** – Online participant from Uganda, IGF online fellow who asked questions about reporting on conventions

# Comprehensive Report: Capacity Building for the Digital Economy – Dynamic Coalitions Perspectives

## Executive Summary

This session at the Internet Governance Forum brought together representatives from multiple Dynamic Coalitions to examine capacity building for the digital economy from diverse perspectives. The discussion was initially moderated by Rajendra Pratap Gupta, who had to leave after 30 minutes, with Janice Richardson taking over moderation for the remainder of the session. The session featured six speakers representing different Dynamic Coalitions, each bringing unique expertise on children’s rights, disability access, financial inclusion, educational resources, and internet governance.

The conversation consistently framed capacity building as a human rights issue while identifying persistent funding gaps, quality standards deficiencies, and the challenge of keeping pace with rapidly evolving technology as core barriers to effective implementation. A key theme emerged around the need to adapt services to people rather than training people to cope with poorly designed services.

## Opening Framework and Multidimensional Nature of Capacity Building

Rajendra Pratap Gupta established the session’s foundation by emphasizing that capacity building extends far beyond technical skills development. He articulated a multidimensional framework encompassing mindset changes, governance understanding, institutional maturity, and multidisciplinary collaboration across various stakeholder levels – from policymakers to communities with special needs.

Gupta stressed that capacity building must address different levels simultaneously, including individual skills, institutional capabilities, and systemic changes. This framing set the stage for examining how different Dynamic Coalitions approach these challenges from their respective domains.

## Children’s Rights and Digital Literacy Evolution

Jutta Croll, representing the Dynamic Coalition on Child Rights in the Digital Environment, positioned capacity building firmly within a human rights framework. She argued that digital literacy connects directly to fundamental human rights including non-discrimination, freedom of speech, privacy, and access to information.

Croll highlighted how digital divides have evolved from basic access issues to more complex digital literacy gaps. She noted that capacity building efforts consistently lag behind technological developments, creating a perpetual cycle of reactive rather than proactive responses. “By the time we get funding and do research, technology has moved on,” she observed.

Her most significant contribution challenged traditional approaches: “Let’s not try to adapt people to the service by training them to cope with the insufficiently designed services, which are not designed for their needs, but adapt the service to the people.” She also raised concerns about AI literacy, noting that artificial intelligence presents new challenges for digital literacy that current capacity building programs are not yet addressing adequately.

## Accessibility and Disability Rights Perspectives

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir, representing the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, brought attention to persistent underrepresentation in internet governance. He noted that despite persons with disabilities representing the world’s largest minority group, their participation in IGF discussions remains minimal after twenty years of sessions.

Shabbir emphasized the importance of quality standards in capacity building platforms, revealing that many online courses fail basic accessibility audits. He referenced the Internet Society’s accessibility course as a positive example but noted such instances are rare. His focus on moving “beyond participation to decision-making roles” reflected the principle of “nothing about us without us.”

He also mentioned the “Beyond Tokenism” session, highlighting ongoing efforts to address meaningful inclusion rather than superficial participation. Shabbir stressed that accessibility considerations must be integrated from the outset of program design rather than added as an afterthought.

## Educational Governance and Resource Realities

Avri Doria’s contribution from the Dynamic Coalition on Schools of Internet Governance provided practical insights into educational delivery challenges. She emphasized that “educating people never, ever, ever comes for free,” highlighting the need for teachers, materials, methodologies, and assistive technology.

Doria expressed skepticism about large-scale systemic solutions while advocating for bottom-up approaches through individual and small group initiatives. She suggested that “devoted people can create examples that multiply and influence others,” representing a pragmatic response to systemic challenges.

Her perspective also addressed quality assurance in “training the trainers” programs, raising questions about maintaining effectiveness and accuracy as educational approaches scale to reach broader populations.

## Financial Inclusion and Digital Rights

Ayden Férdeline, representing the Dynamic Coalition on Financial Inclusion, reframed digital participation as no longer optional but “foundational to realizing human rights.” He argued that digital systems affect individuals whether they actively participate or not, making digital capacity building a human rights imperative.

Férdeline advocated for systematic civil society approaches, suggesting the use of accountability mechanisms to pressure governments and organizations into compliance. He emphasized that Dynamic Coalitions should collaborate across domains since issues like financial inclusion intersect with cybersecurity, accessibility, and gender concerns.

## Open Educational Resources and Knowledge Access

Eleni Boursinou participated online representing the Open Educational Resources Dynamic Coalition, emphasizing that OER serve as “instruments for participation, empowerment and rights realization” rather than merely access tools.

Boursinou raised concerns about quality assurance mechanisms for online educational materials, particularly as artificial intelligence makes content creation more accessible but potentially less reliable. She argued for viewing digital infrastructure as both a right and a shared responsibility requiring coordinated approaches across stakeholders.

## Moderation Transition and Societal Perspectives

When Janice Richardson took over moderation, she brought her perspective from Internet Standards, Safety and Security work. Richardson offered a fundamental reframing of digital challenges, arguing against the conventional terminology of “digital divide” in favor of recognizing a “societal divide” created by technology itself.

Richardson distinguished between “those who really can rise above what they see online, analyze it and take a distance from it, and those who are pushed around by technology.” This framing suggested that capacity building must address not just how to use technology, but how to maintain autonomy and critical judgment in digital environments.

## Global Digital Compact and Implementation Challenges

The discussion frequently referenced the Global Digital Compact as an example of well-intentioned policy that lacks clear implementation mechanisms or dedicated funding. Participants noted the persistent gap between policy commitments and practical implementation across multiple international frameworks.

Speakers highlighted that governments who have ratified UN conventions are legally obliged to implement accessibility requirements, yet enforcement mechanisms remain weak. The discussion touched on the difference between state reports and shadow reports to UN bodies, with civil society often providing more accurate assessments of implementation gaps.

## Audience Participation and Questions

The session included significant audience interaction, with questions focusing on practical implementation of Global Digital Compact provisions. Audience members asked about specific mechanisms for translating policy commitments into action and how to address the persistent funding challenges identified by speakers.

Questions also addressed the role of different stakeholders in capacity building and how to ensure that programs reach the communities most in need of support. The interactive element highlighted the practical concerns of practitioners working on capacity building implementation.

## Funding as a Persistent Challenge

Every speaker identified inadequate financial resources as a critical barrier to effective capacity building. This challenge extended beyond simple resource scarcity to encompass the structural ways in which funding decisions are made and priorities are set.

Speakers noted that while policy documents frequently emphasize capacity building importance, they rarely include dedicated budget allocations or funding mechanisms. The rapid pace of technological change compounds this challenge by requiring continuous updating of educational materials and approaches.

## Quality Standards and Oversight Gaps

The discussion revealed significant gaps in quality standards and oversight mechanisms for capacity building programs. Speakers noted the absence of systematic evaluation of online training courses and educational platforms, leading to inconsistent quality and accessibility.

This lack of standardization particularly affects accessibility, as inclusive design features are often treated as optional extras rather than fundamental requirements when resources are constrained.

## Collaborative Approaches and Future Directions

Speakers expressed commitment to increased collaboration among Dynamic Coalitions, recognizing that capacity building challenges intersect across domains. The discussion generated interest in joint initiatives that could address multiple dimensions of digital inclusion simultaneously.

Participants also discussed the potential for civil society monitoring mechanisms and the development of alternative infrastructure when institutional approaches fail. However, these remained preliminary discussions rather than concrete commitments.

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated both the complexity of capacity building challenges and the potential for collaborative approaches across different domains. While speakers brought different perspectives and expertise, they showed strong alignment on viewing capacity building as fundamentally a human rights issue requiring systematic attention and adequate resources.

The discussion’s most significant insight was the recognition that effective capacity building requires adapting services to users rather than training users to cope with poorly designed systems. This principle has implications for how programs are designed and delivered across all domains represented.

The session also highlighted the persistent implementation gap between policy commitments and practical action, with funding constraints and quality standards deficiencies as primary barriers. Addressing these challenges will require sustained collaboration across Dynamic Coalitions and broader stakeholder communities, building on the foundation of shared understanding established in this discussion.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Welcome, everyone, to the workshop five of the Dynamic Coalition session, the capacity building. We know that without capacity building, there would be no digital economy. This is the core of what we do. And I’m very lucky to have a distinguished panel of experts representing Dynamic Coalitions with me. Dr. Mohammad Shabbir from DCAT, Aydan Ferdin from Dynamic Coalition on Financial Inclusion, Janice Richardson, IS3C, Jutta Kroll from DC CRIDE, Avri Doria from DC Schools of Internet Governance, and Eleni Berns-Neu from OER DC. And we will have people joining us online. How we’re going to conduct this session is I’m going to set the context of why this is important. Seek views of my expert panelists who have joined us. And we would want the people in the audience in the room also to ask us questions as we go forward. In my view, capacity building is as multidimensional as is digital economy. And it’s not just about the technical skills, but also about mindset. It’s about governance. It’s about multidisciplinary collaboration. And so no better forum than a multi-stakeholder organization like IGF to discuss about it. And as I see the capacity building initiative needs across the continuum, one of the things that comes to mind is is at the highest level of policy, the policymakers’ capacity building, the governance, the workforce capacity building, institutional capacity building. So you will see many times that we have technical maturity. For anything that you need a technology solution, we have it. We do not have the organizational maturity to leverage that. So that’s a huge divide as well. Then you have communities and users, and then people with special needs, and then you have media. So what we’re going to do is to go across the expert panel and ask them their views on this topic first, and then we deep dive into this topic in detail. And in 30 minutes, I have a hard stop because I have to move to another panel. So my colleague, Janice Richardson, would be moderating the rest. And I’m sure it’s in able hands. Let me start with the question of capacity building and what are the views around it. I will go from my right, Jutta. Your views?

Jutta Croll: Yes, of course I have views. And although my focus is on children’s rights, I will base my input today on a more broader human rights perspective. When we consider the human rights to non-discrimination, freedom of speech, access to information, the right to privacy, and the right to peaceful assembly and association, these are all examinated in the digital space. And these rights apply just to enable everybody to take part in the digital age. We are obliged to build people’s capacities by providing them with skills and the competencies necessary for responsibly and safely navigating the digital environment. And my experiences in this regard date back to the turn of the millennium, when even in developed countries, less than one third of the population had ever heard of the digital age. about the internet, let alone having access to digital services, which was then when the term digital divide was coined. And nowadays, we are going to face a further digital divide. I would call that the digital literacy divide, which is even widened in course of the time. Eventually, we need to keep in mind that lessons we are teaching today to address this literacy divide, they will be outdated tomorrow, though we really need in capacity building, we need to keep pace and to be up to date. I’ve just been attending a session on AI literacy and I will get back to capacity building in regard of AI and also in regard of a potential digital AI divide. Thank you.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you, Jutta. You made a very important point of the human rights perspective and how the digital divide is aggravating rather than, you know, alleviating. And this brings me to Avri, who represents schools of internet governance. Avri, what’s your take on this and how are you going to address this issue going forward?

Avri Doria: Thank you. I think it’s actually an interesting question, you know, on the human right. It’s something that even before we had any good conceptions of, you know, of there being human rights, innumerable human rights, we knew the children had to be educated. We knew that people had to have schools. And so while I think there are many dimensions to the notion of capacity building, both in the creation of knowledge and the dispersing of knowledge, given that my role here is to talk about the schools, I’ll sort of focus on those. Though without all the other capabilities that sort of create the knowledge we teach, the schools would be useless. Within something, whether it’s a new or a long-existing area with new people getting involved in it, there’s always the need to organize that knowledge and to organize the teaching of it. Now, often the teachers in the schools don’t assume that they’re doing it within something that is a human right, and as I am here as a teacher, to fulfill the human right of the students, that is really the case. So when I looked at internet governance and data governance and all those things, yes, everyone could go and be autodidactic and read the books and teach themselves, and that could work, but it doesn’t happen. And therefore, you really do need people that have experience in the subjects to actually work with the newer folk, whether they’re young and new or even old and new, to figure out how to teach them about the subject area, how to bring it, how to make it. But it goes even further in the schools for internet governance. For example, doing an IGF, doing a multi-stakeholder process, participating in a multi-stakeholder process is something that is foreign to most all of us before we step foot in a multi-stakeholder environment. So schools need to also teach sort of what I’d call the practicum of how do you do it. Just like when I was working on a degree in counseling, I had to do practicum counseling under supervision just so I would know the how to do it. So when we’re talking about capacity building, we’re talking not only about the knowledge, but the capability to actually do. I guess I’ll stop there for now.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you so much, Avri, for bringing this important point. It’s not just about knowledge. It’s about capability and capacity. Coming to Janice, Janice, you have been working… in this field for decades. How do you see this area of capacity building in the future and how do we address it?

Janice Richardson: So first of all, I am representing here the IS3C Internet Standards, Safety and Security, and I think standards are important because they do also translate into ethics. I’ve listened to my colleagues, but I think there’s one really important element that we haven’t discussed so far, and that is not just capacity building to do things, but capacity building to understand the impact that technology is having on our life, how it’s shaping our attitude, how it’s changing the way we really think. And we’ve seen this in elections all over the world. If people really understood the impact of technology on the decisions that they’re making, if we understood how the algorithms are giving me information from one side but not from the other, I think then we can really start talking about people being capable of using technology effectively. I wouldn’t talk about a digital divide. I think it’s more a societal divide and I think that it’s the technology that has pushed us towards the societal divide. Those who really can rise above what they see online, analyse it and take a distance from it, and those who are pushed around by technology, and I think that’s a very big difference. And we do need to talk about this from the very earlier stage. We’re putting kids in front of screens, we’re changing the plasticity of their brain, and so capacity building works. also has to take a much more, I would say, a much broader approach and really understand what’s happening to society. And I will stop there.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you, Janice. And you made this important point that it’s not just a digital divide, it’s a societal divide, it’s a social divide. And this brings me back to connecting the dots, what Jutta said, what Avri said, and what you finally alluded to is that this is a world where we have to take everyone along to make sure that this societal divide doesn’t happen. This brings me to Dr. Mohammad Shabbir from the Dynamic Coalition on Disability. Dr. Shabbir, how do you see this and how do you see that we should be addressing, given the work that you’ve been doing in the Dynamic Coalition?

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much, Rajendra, and thank you very much to my colleagues who have spoken before me. I thank them for making my job a little bit more easier. But I take a little bit of a different view from the perspective of DCAD in terms of capacity building. Persons with disabilities are considered to be the largest minority on earth. And unfortunately, when it comes to their participation in IG discussions, their number can be counted on fingers and we still have some fingers left if we start doing that. What does this mean? This means that in 20 years of IGF discussions, though you would find that every IGF has had sessions and discussions on persons with disabilities, about persons with disabilities. I myself have participated in about five of them. This is my fifth IGF out of 20. So 25% of of the IGF I participated in, but there are very few who participate. And then this raises a question, are we building the capacities in the right manner or do we need to do something else? Is it the question of just capacity or there is something else which is required? In my understanding, capacity building is not just required from the user side or the participant sides to participate, enable them to participate in the IGF discussions. But it is also required on the organizer’s side as well as one of my earlier colleagues talked about knowledge creation. So on the side of the person who is creating and producing the knowledge in a way where it is made accessible for people who access the knowledge in a different manner. So the question that those knowledge producers need to ask themselves is whether that knowledge would be accessible those persons with disabilities or not. And lastly, the point I want to make in my initial intervention is that the disability is a transnational, transgender, trans-geographic, trans-racial subject. It can catch anyone and everyone at a time when we least expect it. And it’s not by choice, it’s by design. So everyone working in the places of decision making, be that knowledge production, be that capacity building or website production or whatever else, they need to think whether can I make this accessible? If not. then sometime someday you yourself might need it and may find it inaccessible for yourself. I stop there, thank you.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you so much, Dr. Shabbir, and you made this important point about knowledge being accessible or not. Now this brings me to a very important point that we are talking of capacity building and we’re living in a digital era. So everything from financial products to education, to health, everything has moved digital. This brings me to Aydan who represents the Dynamic Coalition on Financial Inclusion. Aydan, given the fact that the financial markets, the financial world also is moving digital, currencies are moving digital, are we really touching anything on financial inclusion? Where we stand today, what’s your view and what are we doing on that? And what’s the way forward? Sorry for a longest question.

Ayden Férdeline: I welcome the longest question. Thank you for that important question and thank you as well to my colleagues on the stage here for your earlier contributions today. As you mentioned, I’m here to represent the Dynamic Coalition on Digital Financial Inclusion. And when we began our work last year, one of our members, the Intellectual Foundation, conducted some thought leadership to map whether financial rights even were human rights. And that was one of the conversations that we’ve had to have ourself to really understand because there is not per se a human right to finance, from what human rights do financial rights derive? And for us, it became clear that financial rights derive from and enable rights, including the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to social protection, the right to work and to economic participation, and in digital context, the right to non-discrimination, to data protection and privacy, though privacy is not always a human right, and access to financial services. And to also really link back to the question that you’re asking around… capacity building, we have come to believe that to be able to meaningfully exercise these rights, individuals do need to have the capability to access and to use financial systems, especially as these systems become digitized. And even if the individual themselves is not digitally participating in systems, these systems are digital and they are impacting people, whether they use them in an electronic form or not. So even someone who is using, for lack of a better word, analog financial services is in some way being impacted by digital financial services, because the likelihood is that the financial service provider is in some way using electronic systems. And so in that way, digital financial inclusion is not just a technical or a development issue, but it is clearly a fundamental right. And so when we speak about capacities and competencies that are required for our digital future, we think that we need to begin by recognizing that digital participation is no longer optional. It is foundational to realizing human rights. It is happening to you whether you opt to participate or not. And we think that is one of the most overlooked, yet essential components of participation, that ability to access, to use, to control financial services. And really, when we’re talking about the ability of individuals to exercise agency, when we’re talking about the ability to be able to make meaningful choices in an increasingly digitized society, that does include the ability to transact, to save, to borrow, to be able to participate in economic life. Because without these capacities, the other rights that I’ve heard people on the stage identify, the right to education, the right to health, the right to have services as an individual. who requires the services and even the right to political participation are undermined. And so to answer the question at a high but unhelpful level, yes, we do need capacity building because we do need agency to be able to ensure that more and more people are able to participate in today’s digital society. But these issues are very much cross-cutting and we cannot merely address financial inclusion alone. We have to work in tandem with everyone else on this stage to try to bring together a better path forward. Thanks.

Janice Richardson: Thank you, Aidan. And I believe that we have Eleni online. Can we hear your views on this, please, Eleni?

Eleni Boursinou: Yes. Hello. Can you hear me, everyone?

Janice Richardson: Yes, perfectly.

Eleni Boursinou: Hello, good afternoon and thank you for giving me the floor. I’m very pleased to share some reflections from the OER Dynamic Coalition on how OER can help build more inclusive knowledge societies. So the 2019 UNESCO recommendation places equity, inclusion and accessibility at the heart of its vision because OER are not only tools for access, they are also instruments for participation, empowerment and rights realization. As Jutta said in her contribution, she talked about the critical need of digital literacy. OER can play a huge role in ensuring that everyone has the tools and the right to learn and contribute to knowledge creation. So to achieve this, we must go further than basic ICT skills. The OER recommendation emphasizes the need for critical digital literacy. digital literacy, so users can confidently share and adapt resources. Then, including how to evaluate online information and AI systems. Then, everything that goes with open licensing literacy. Third, a rights-based understanding of digital engagement, including privacy and non-discrimination. And fourth, assistive technology skills for learners with disabilities. And these competencies are foundational for inclusive digital development, as outlined in the Global Digital Compact. Lack of digital capacity is itself a form of discrimination. The OER Recommendation Section Area 3 calls for inclusive, well-resourced capacity building so that all stakeholders, especially those in vulnerable situations, can participate meaningfully. So, we work with OERDC, we work with Member States, with teachers, with schools, but also in the decision-making level and in the policy development level. And we hope that we are creating impact because we need an agile and inclusive OER ecosystem as a whole. So, I’ll finish with that for now.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: And thank you, Eleni. We’ve discussed then many, I would almost say, gaps in our capacity building. We’ve gone from rights with Utah, the importance of schools and teaching, from Dr. Shabir, the importance of integrating, of adapting, but of making sure that equality exists for the many. people in the world who need that little bit of extra help. From Aidan we talked about finance and finally from Alan, sorry I’ve broken that down very much, I would say capacity and understanding agency in the economic world. And of course the importance of open educational resources from Melanie. Now I’m going to open the floor to questions and I don’t quite know how it works. No one told me. I believe there’s a microphone there. Yes, would you mind lining up if you have a question at the microphone so that we can hear what your questions are. We really want this to be a very interactive debate. Do we have any proposals of what’s missing, what we should be thinking about when we’re talking about capacity building and then we’ll come back to the panel shortly. Could you introduce yourself first please.

Gonilla Astbrink: Hello, my name, can you hear me? My name is Gonilla Astbrink, training coordinator with the Internet Society Accessibility Standing Group and I was interested in both Avidorius and Eleni’s comments and of course Dr. Shabir. I’m very interested in the Global Digital Compact and there is quite an extensive clause there on digital literacy and capacity building and it also includes about accessible interfaces for persons with disabilities so it’s of great interest to us. I’m wondering how do we get those clauses from the GDC and implement them in member states. It’s a challenging one with WSIS plus 20 and trying to drill it down. Are there any processes that the panel can suggest? I know… There are a lot of discussions ongoing, but I’m interested in your comments. Thank you.

Janice Richardson: And thank you very much for this very interesting question. So I’m going to turn to the panel. Is there anyone who’d especially like to take this question? Yes, please, Avri.

Avri Doria: I’ll start. I guess there’s two things in your question. One is we can’t count on just governments to do it. So the notion of how do we get governments to do it, yes, is an important one. Governments should probably do it. But that sort of might happen, might not happen. It depends on politics, government priorities. But how do you get it done in any case by any of those with the potentials to do it? And it requires one of the things that’s almost always missing other than the will, and that’s the funding. Educating people never, ever, ever comes for free. Not only do you have to pay teachers, but you have to have materials. You have to spend time developing methodologies, defending methods. If you need assistive technology, that costs. So there’s almost no education other than the old Socratic sitting under a tree and giving a lecture that can be done for free. And even then you have to feed poor Socrates. So that is almost always. And it is very interesting about capacity building. It’s not only the GDC, but every single one of the documents from the time of the Tunis Agenda and the plan and all that has cried out for capacity building, capacity building in development areas, capacity building in skills that are needed, capacity building in allowing those that have problems, have issues. issues, have trouble learning, have trouble reading, every one of those needs to be done, and yet never ever have they ever said, and we’re going to dedicate a certain amount of resource to building the skills, educating the teachers, and then putting in plans. And so I guess it’s a long way of saying, I don’t have the faintest idea, unless they figure out that they are going to put themselves behind funding it, because without funding there are no teachers, there is no assistants, there are no schools.

Janice Richardson: Thank you, and I think that’s sort of the crux of the matter, where, who, how do we build this capacity? Jutta has asked for the floor.

Jutta Croll: Yes, I wanted to refer to the UN Convention on People with Disabilities and also on children, on the rights of children, and what we did four years ago with the general comment on children’s rights in the digital environment, emphasises that children’s rights to education and also the rights of children with disabilities need to be adapted to the digital environment, so we need to understand that there are already rights that need kind of a further interpretation how to do that, but going to your question back with regard to the governments, all those governments who have ratified the conventions are obliged to adhere to what they have ratified.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: Two or three persons with disabilities, where thousands, three, four or at least six thousand participants are participating in person or online, is not just the peanuts, it’s even less than that. So we need, as someone earlier said, we need more finances if we want more voices of persons with disabilities. With regards to accessibility of platforms, this is second thing, and it can come with low costs as well. But there I would have to say, unfortunately, we also need, as I said in the beginning, we need the capacity building of the institutions and organizations. In 20 years of IGF’s existence, still we find certain inaccessibilities with the IGF platforms and its websites. So it does not just mean that there is lack of capacity amongst those who do not know about accessibility, but there is something else, which I don’t want to name the lack of willingness, because that would be too much a strong word, but I don’t have any other expression to use for that, and I stop there.

Janice Richardson: And thank you very much. I think that you’ve really put the ball in our court. Aidan, can I ask what you think about this question?

Ayden Férdeline: Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity to respond, and I echo all of the comments from my colleagues earlier. I would say that if we think about what leverage we have or what mechanisms, other mechanisms might exist in order to see the good clauses of the Global Digital Compact materialize in ways that we can see and benefit people with disabilities. So obviously, implementation does require political will, and it would be perfect if political will was there, but where does political will come from? Political will comes from collaboration and pressure that is put on from different actors who work together and form coalitions to put that pressure onto governments. One instrument that we have is to name and shame. Civil society, for example, could have a scorecard that is evaluating how the national translation of the GDC into national law is weighing up, and if it’s not measuring up, then that is good to know. So we can leverage peer pressure, soft power, enforcement by reputation can drive reform when visibility is at stake. You can also, as I can’t remember, I believe it was Jutta might have mentioned this, but tying funding as well. And it doesn’t just need to be, it can also be funding from private philanthropy, from donors, from development banks. They can become enforcers by conditionality. We can advocate that digital public infrastructure grants, for example, must adhere to certain norms within the GDC, whether that’s open standards, human rights impact assessments, inclusive access. I’m not an expert on the Global Digital Compact. I’m sure there are many other great pieces that we could draw upon to tie into the different private funding that is made available. But we can also build parallel infrastructure that upholds the best parts of Global Digital Compact as well. And certainly something within the Dynamic Coalition on Digital Financial Inclusion that we have been supporting for is that we think when enforcement through state channels fails repeatedly, when there are vested interests that prevent there from being better infrastructure that materializes, we can build alternatives. We can support open-source rights-based digital public goods. We can use decentralized or federated architecture. We can pilot different models that can scale and influence policy from the bottom up. So just putting out some other ideas on the table that innovation can also be a form of enforcement. We can demonstrate what is possible. We can shame what is not possible. And we can also bring in new actors to this space and to others to have those conversations. and to sort of make the case for why the good parts of the Global Digital Compact you have a responsibility to take forward as well. It is not enough to expect states to be enforcing the Global Digital Compact, they should, but it is also reasonable to make the argument to other actors, including in the private sector and in philanthropy, that maybe someone else was carrying excess weight in the past, it’s your turn to step up. Thanks.

Janice Richardson: So we’ve got a lot of great ideas. I wonder when these dynamic coalitions can work together to help implement them. And I’m turning now to Eleni. Eleni, did you have anything to respond on this question? I know that there’s one person waiting to ask a new question. Eleni.

Eleni Boursinou: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Janice. I just want to say that I echo what my colleague said and I also want to say that it’s not only about funding, at least about OER. I can say from our experience, I mean, it needs to be, in order to have inclusive OER ecosystems, we need to have a backup by institutional frameworks, funding and standards. What I say, I mean, open standards, ensuring that OER are integrated into lifelong learning and accessible to all. So also, what my colleague said is very, very important, that in order to have inclusive digital public infrastructure, it’s not just a right, it’s both a right and a shared responsibility. And we have this responsibility as dynamic coalitions to do more and advocate more, because that’s what we do. Thank you. Thank you, Janice.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: We have a new question. Would you like to ask your question, please?

Audience: Yes, thank you, Janice. I think I’m going to take it out for a while. represent the DC on internet standard security and safety. Where capacity building is concerned, I noticed that it’s very hard to get the attention and the funding to continue the research work that has been done and translate that into some sort of capacity building. So I have the idea that some of the people sitting here have a good experience with capacity building. So what is your experience that you could share with other DCs? But the second is, is the IGF structured in such a way that we can easily translate the work that all the DCs, there are 32 of them, do into some sort of actions? Should the IGF be organized in a different way from 2026 onwards to make it easier to share the messages coming out of your DCs and the others? Thank you.

Janice Richardson: Thank you, Wout. So I think crudely put, how do we actually put into action what we’re all talking about? Is this a talk shop or can we really lead forward and take action? Do anyone on the panel want to intervene on this or is there someone in the audience who would like to respond? Where does that money come from for the research that’s really necessary if we’re going to customize the capacity building for the different population sectors and challenges? Yes, Jutta.

Jutta Croll: I don’t, I can’t tell where the money does come from, but I don’t think it’s only a question of funding. It’s the question of whether we are quick enough. The whole landscape that we need these capacities for is rapidly evolving due to the technical developments and the innovations. So we are always a little bit. or maybe a big step behind these developments. So when we are going for funding, that takes time. Then we get the funding, we do the research, and what we want to research is maybe just a step ahead. So we really need to have a kind of quicker strategies to address these issues, to not be lagging behind with our educational strategies, with our curricula, for example. We need to adapt that to the technology. And my idea would be that somehow Dr. Shabir has already addressed those who are developing services, who are developing technologies. They should also consider from the beginning what capacities, what skills, what competencies would people need when they use these services. So not that we are stepping behind that and then develop a curriculum for a technology that was there for a time or having in between research, how do we address these competencies, the trainings, the curricula in schools. It needs to go in parallel because otherwise we are just not quick enough in these innovative times.

Janice Richardson: And I think there you’ve really put the finger on a problem that we suffer a lot in Europe. The European Commission does provide budgets with programs such as Horizons, but you have to put in your proposal a year before. And by the time you’ve got the money, the issue has passed and something new is on the scene. I believe that Avri wanted to say something, am I right? No, okay. I’m going to turn back to Dr. Shabir who would like to ask a question of his own to the audience. Can we have another question? Online questions. Oh, sorry. Do we have, okay. We’ll have an online question when we’ve heard the question from Dr. Shabir.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: No, I think we can do that. I can hold back. questions because I have spoken enough so I can give chance to other people to speak.

Janice Richardson: Thank you, please. So, we have an online question from Emmanuel Orok from Uganda, he’s one of our online fellows and he asks about reporting on the convention, I guess he’s talking about the CPRD. He says that sometimes they don’t reflect what’s actually the reality and he was wondering whether multilateral agencies conduct M&Es on the cases that they’ve looked at, especially statistics and does it match the impact of what they expect to see on the ground? Does anyone have an answer to his question? So, does anyone have an answer? Is there anyone in the public who has an answer? Reporting, it’s so important. We can report but does it always match the reality? Is there anyone with a response on this one? I think he’s raised a very difficult question that we all need to think about. Is there anyone in the public who would like to respond to this question? Anyone here? Yes, Jutta.

Jutta Croll: I just can give an example also from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and that is we have this regular based state reports that are done by the government and usually that takes a lot of time till they have compiled all the information that has to go into the report giving the state of the art of the implementation of the convention. But there is also the additional report, is it called the alternative report, Torsten? The shadow report. That is done by… usually by civil society organizations. And due to the fact that they don’t have these administrative hurdles, this can be a bit quicker and can give a more closer to the reality situation state of the art report. So it’s good to have these shadow reports as well. I don’t know whether they exist also for the UN Convention on People with Disabilities, but that is a good option. Thank you so much.

Janice Richardson: Thanks, Jutta. And so yes, I think we have a response. Larry, go ahead.

Audience: I can’t hear myself. I assume you can hear me. Yes. There we go. Yeah, I think that the, I can’t remember the exact article of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, which provides for participation and access to media. It is routinely violated by many, many countries, including European countries. The United States hasn’t signed it, but all of these laws that are banning social media for people under 16 or restricting social media or putting in surveillance, all of which violate that article. So I would say that that’s a great aspiration, but largely ignored by many of the member states.

Janice Richardson: So thank you. We got an answer, but yes.

Jutta Croll: Larry, we are going to put that in the shadow report, definitely, that we don’t think that the social media bans are in line with Article 17.

Janice Richardson: Thank you. Dr. Shabir, over to you.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: OK. Thank you very much. Well, the question that I have from my fellow DC representatives is the, well, we can discuss this tomorrow, but certainly this comes in the way of capacity building as well. This is very important here, we all know, with all the WSIS 20 plus review and all of those things, feature of IGF. So have we had? the capacities build to prepare ourselves of what is coming next.

Janice Richardson: Is there anyone on the panel? I think I’ll turn to Avri. Maybe you have an idea on this.

Avri Doria: Yeah, you saw me shake my head. And I fear I’m being a fairly pessimistic person in this session. And obviously, the only bright spot I ever see is philanthropy, is NGOs that manage to do it. It is the big companies that decide that they are going to fund. And certainly we have funding there. But by and large, I’m not even sure we’re ready for what we have. And so while we’re still at a point of trying to figure out what is to come, it’s not like there’s ever a parallel process we are inventing X, how do we put X into the ether, into the open zone in a safe manner? So perhaps that’s something that needs to start. We need to sort of invent our capacity for dealing with something as we are venting the something. But we can’t even get people to test things for safety. We can’t even get people to do design in that sort of stuff as things are going on. So again, my pessimism says, great idea, but how do we convince anybody to do it? And I don’t think, I happen to not be one of the ones that supports making laws to do things like that, because we always find ways around laws. And whenever we make a law, we just find new ways of creating more law enforcement and cleverer ways to. get around them. So how do we do it by convincing people? And that comes back to capacity, but how do I build your capacity to build something in a moral way, in a safe way? And we’re not even thinking about that, but perhaps that’s what we should start, is raising the capacity of the inventors, of the engineers, of the others to think of it in terms of how it will be used, how it will be safe, et cetera. But I really don’t know. I just don’t.

Janice Richardson: Yes, thank you. You put it out there. Does anyone else want to respond to this? Aidan, did you have anything you wanted to say, or you’re fine?

Ayden Férdeline: I am fine. I don’t have a good response to that. I mean, what I really think about when it comes to capacity building is, who trains the trainer, and those kind of questions. Because we have just, as our dynamic coalition on digital financial inclusion, put together a policy blueprint. But if you read it, it’s really just a series of questions for other people to answer. Because the reality is that some of these issues are really difficult to respond to, and very contextual. And when I think about any evolving process, be it WSIS Plus 20, the Global Digital Compact, I mean, we don’t know what we don’t know just yet. So it’s difficult to think through what a structured capacity building program would look like. Because there was an earlier question around, how should the IGF structure perhaps be reformed to be a little more fit for purpose? I would love to have been able to respond to say, we could create a dedicated track for exploring financial inclusion and financial rights. And we could have workshops, and knowledge repositories, and toolkits on building rights-based digital payments, and financial consumer protection, and digital aid. and digital literacy is a financial right and implementation guidance. But the reality is, we just have literally 10 pages of questions for other people to help us answer, and we are seeking input. But the reality is, we have also consulted subject matter experts, and the problem is that if some of these problems could be solved more simply, they would have been solved a long time ago. So when I think about capacity building, I agree that it’s important. I agree that we should do it. I think we need to give capacity building a very structured home in all of our processes. But I also fear that it’s not so easy to operationalize.

Janice Richardson: Thank you. And would Eleni like to come in on this? No response. Yes.

Eleni Boursinou: I don’t have any comments on this.

Janice Richardson: Is there anyone, any questions online? No. No. Dr. Gupta asked me a specific question. He would like to know, how do we change mindsets? According to him, and I think many of us agree, it’s the mindset. People don’t understand the importance of capacity building, which may be why they are not sufficiently, why it’s not sufficiently funded. So I’m going to ask you all this question. How do we change the mindset so that people really understand the importance of capacity building? And therefore, we can do our research, we can fund our research, we can fund, we can structure. How do we change mindsets? And from the audience also, if you have something to say, please go to the microphone. Yes, Fyuta.

Jutta Croll: Yes, I’m here. I would say, first of all, we need to understand, I don’t think we have all the same mindset. We have cultural differences in regard of the mindset of capacity building. We have differences across the globe, what the mindset is towards capacity building. We have different educational infrastructures. We have different situations in regard of train the trainer, what Aiden has brought up. So I don’t think we can have a strategy to change the mindset in a way that works everywhere around the globe. What brought to my mind the reference to the train the trainers is we also need to discuss whether we have quality standards for training the trainers. When we have maybe we have come a step further with defining what capacities, what skills, what competencies we are talking about, but we have not been talking about what quality standards we would have for these trainings. And if the trainers don’t have the same quality standards, probably all these educated people, if we have them, then would not have got the same quality of education. And what we see with so many platforms where content is provided, where even how do you call it, like trainings, online training courses are provided, no one has oversight whether these are really of quality and train the right skills that people need for a certain service. So I do think we need to put more attention also in this regard to make sure that we have quality standards in place so that I don’t just take a course and afterwards it’s not worth having invested the time.

Janice Richardson: And do you think, I mean, who should be, where is the big problem with the mindset? Is it with the policymakers? Is it with the workforce? Is it with the media? Is it with the institutions or simply with the communities? So when you respond, if you could also think about who is responsible for having the current mindset? Yeah.

Ayden Férdeline: And I think it also depends on who it is that we’re offering the capacity building training to, as well as who should be really the recipient of that capacity building training. Because if I look within our dynamic coalition on digital financial inclusion, some of our members are financial institutions who probably already appreciate in some circumstances that capacity building is a risk mitigation strategy. So they would understand that for people in certain roles, you, with poorly trained compliance officers, you’re going to have some pretty significant failures in regulatory risks. And so capacity gaps can be understand in that sense. When we think though about who probably should be the recipients of some capacity building, it might be more around someone. Does someone understand really the terms of a financial service that they’ve signed up to? Do they have recourse when automated decisions go wrong? Are they protected from discriminatory algorithms? Do they have the connectivity or the identification or the confidence that is needed to use a financial service or product? And so there’s two different things here. There is the implications for the end-user, the historically excluded communities, and those who have the most to lose potentially from lack of capacity building. And then there are the capacity building that can be offered as an argument that it is a risk mitigation strategy. So who is it that is receiving the training and who should receive the training? Because then the arguments around who is responsible are different and the incentives are different. Because obviously for some cases, the economic case can be made very powerfully. For others, well, maybe we need to quantify the gap and benchmark progress in order to understand why certain individuals are being harmed and why we may have an obligation for other actors to step forward to offer some assistance.

Janice Richardson: So if I understand from Aidan, there are many mindsets, well, from both of you, there are many mindsets and the approach must be different for each. Can I call on you now, please, Dr. Shabir?

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: Yes, so I would just echo the statements that my colleagues made. And I would substantiate with the examples that from the in the disability field and what is the motto of DCAD fellowship program is that we do not set any limitations on the fellowship. Of course, we cannot provide moon or business class tickets if they are required. Certainly within reasonable limits, we try to meet the individual’s needs. So each individual as human have different requirements and needs. We can apply the case study as with the person with disabilities. Since they have different needs, so those needs have to be met when you want to make the system or policy or platform accessible. Same is the case with the capacity building. You cannot have set checkboxes or if you want to make a list, it would be a long one. that would give you some indicators that who, when, and where to target. For instance, there are a number of capacity building online courses that train people with regards to different aspects of the Internet governance. Many of the organizations run those courses, but if you do an accessibility audit of those courses, those online courses from the perspective of people with disabilities, there are very few, and I am using the word very because I don’t have any other word to use that, where you would find no accessibility issues. So it would mean in other way that those courses, online courses, capacity building, which could have been easier, less costly, and less cumbersome for people with disabilities to follow and to learn from, right from their places of their convenience, you made them inaccessible for them. So platforms need to be made accessible. Internet societies, one course, Disability Leadership in Internet Governance, is one example, and that organization is trying to meet the needs and make the course accessible for people with disabilities. The next question comes, then, how do you market that product, that there is this course available that people with disabilities need to take? And it’s not just that you have the capacity building course, and if you do not have the right learners learning that course, doing capacity building, who would you build that capacity for?

Janice Richardson: So if I understand from what you’re saying, Dr. Shabir, we first of all need to change the mindset towards disabilities, and then perhaps we’ll make progress. I’m going to call on Eleni, and here’s a little warning, Avri, you’re going to be next. Eleni, do you have anything to add here? What mindset are we going to change?

Eleni Boursinou: Yes. My experience from the OER Coalition is that we need to start from the decision-making and policy-making level to make them understand why it is important and give some institutional framework that will provide incentives to the trainers that will use OER so that they will do it and it will be part of their professional development and they will have reasons to be implicated in the process and in the knowledge creation process. And also, what I wanted to say is another challenge that is coming up in the AI era is the quality assurance mechanisms and how do we make sure that what we find online, the course is a quality course or not, and the challenges are great and we are working on it, we are doing research on it, but we don’t have still very concrete solutions.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you. And Avri, the mindset in education is extremely important. It’s very difficult to move along. What have you got to tell us on this point?

Avri Doria: Okay. So, I think when I look at the problem on the large scale is when I find myself getting pessimistic because we have to change the mindset. You know, you asked whose mindset? It’s society’s. It’s not any particular person, it’s not any particular group. I tend to find that capacity building, when it works, is done piecemeal by the devoted. In other words, you plunk down a school, you start a program, you write something and then you find out about the standards you need to meet. That each one of those is an individual or a small group of people that decide to do something. Those things work, those things multiply, those things become examples to others. So whenever I start sitting in one of these and looking at, from a large scale, how can we do it, it seems an intractable problem. But when you start looking at the problem in the small steps, the what step can each of us take, the what step can our group of educators take, from what steps can etc. take, then it starts to be tractable. I have to drink some water so I can speak. But basically, that strikes me as kind of the only way forward, is sort of to keep selling it, keep preaching it, keep talking about it, etc. One person decides to go out and start a school, one person decides to take their website and make it accessible. One person writes a story about something that appeals to others. That kind of movement seems possible, the movement from the individual on out, the bottom up on out. But whenever I look for a large scale solution, that’s when despair starts to descend on me.

Janice Richardson: So perhaps what we do need is find a way to scale up these grassroots projects to make them more visible, or at least get more of them to happen. That also. Is there anyone in the public who would like to… to talk about what mindset do we need to change, how do we go about this change, so that we all believe that capacity building is important and can change society. We have no takers from the audience, no more questions? No. Is there anyone online who’d like to add a word? No. So. One minute to each speaker, I have eight minutes left. Yes, certainly. What I’m going to ask you to do now is give us some final words, but something really impactful that will start leading us towards something new, towards the progress that we’re looking for between our dynamic coalitions to move forward with capacity building, perhaps together and perhaps individually. Who would like to start? Just one or two minutes about your final thoughts on this session. We can also start with Eleni, if you wish.

Eleni Boursinou: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Janice. I’m adding my video. Yes, thank you. So we are working on capacity building and we really hope that we will continue bringing OER in the heart of inclusive ecosystems. And we are very much motivated to work with all the dynamic coalitions on continuing bringing together all the elements that will make SDGs a reality. And thank you for giving me the floor and the opportunity to be with you online today.

Janice Richardson: Thank you. And thank you also for mentioning the SDGs, which we have. really mention, but I think that it underpins everything we’re talking about with capacity building. Aidan, can I turn to you first, please? Absolutely.

Ayden Férdeline: Thank you for giving me the floor. So in human rights law, states have positive obligations not only to refrain from violating human rights, but to actively create the conditions in which rights can be realized. And for our dynamic coalition, the Dynamic Coalition on Digital Financial Inclusion, we’ve been saying that the same now has to apply to digital financial inclusion. We see that interoperable, open digital payment systems are infrastructure for human development, and we advocate for a shift in mindset. We think that we shouldn’t see financial inclusion as charity or development aid or corporate social responsibility. It can be all of those things, but it’s also a right, the right to be able to participate in the right to economic participation. And so I welcome you to take a look at our policy blueprint and to offer us feedback on it so that we can help improve it. We believe that financial inclusion does intersect with many of the issues that everyone else is working on, whether it is cybersecurity, whether it is accessibility, whether it is gender-related issues, whether it’s digital identity. And I’m just going to throw it out there, we’re very open to forming a cross-dynamic coalition, Dynamic Coalition on Digital Financial Inclusion, but you’re also more than welcome to join and to participate in our existing Dynamic Coalition as well. Because ultimately, if we all want a digital future that is equitable, that is empowering, and is just, we need to build competencies that are rooted in rights, and we need to design systems that measure up those rights. Because we think digital finance is not just a tool but a lifeline, and so we would love to break down silos, integrate digital financial inclusion into the agendas and the work plans of other works and to have a productive and long tenure here at the IGF.

Janice Richardson: Thank you. Dr. Shabir, your thoughts?

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: Yes, thank you very much. I would just say that the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability is trying to do in its capacity to build capacity of people with disabilities and not just people with disabilities but also the IGF system to make those systems accessible and inclusive for all so that people with disabilities can also contribute in the system meaningfully. Now, changing the mindset is one thing but we start from the low-hanging fruit where we try to bring people with disabilities to the discussions through capacity building training program. We just do not bring them here and leave them, throw them in the pond to swim by themselves. We provide them with a mentor along with an online training program first. We also have for the system guidelines which were updated back in 2024 to make the meetings accessible for people with disabilities. UN Secretariat, the IGF Secretariat benefits from those guidelines but it does picks and chooses or the guidelines of convenience sometimes as I am fond of saying. Those guidelines are there to make the event accessible so it should not be pick and choose that what is convenient. If it has to be that And if there are any financial constraints on implementing all of those guidelines, then there should be a discussion that what should be prioritized in the case of making the event accessible for people with disabilities without asking them first making the decision is not the right approach. Lastly, I would say yesterday we had a session on the beyond tokenism. That was something where we talked about having persons with disabilities in the future leadership spaces. And this is where the takeaways of that sessions comes in. People with disabilities should not just be participating, but they should be making the decisions because nothing about us without us. Thank you.

Janice Richardson: Thank you. Jutta, some last words?

Jutta Croll: Yes. So I’m convinced capacity building is a precondition to benefit from the digital environment. Nonetheless, having said that, my key takeaway from this session is let’s try… No, sorry. Let’s not try to adapt people to the service by training them to cope with the insufficiently designed services, which are not designed for their needs, but adapt the service to the people. And this counts. And that I’ve already also learned in this session counts for all users, for children, as well as for people with disabilities. We have services that are just not adapted to the needs of children. And now we are trying to ban them from these services instead of designing the services age appropriately. Thank you.

Janice Richardson: Thank you. I think we’ve got some very sharp words here. Avri.

Avri Doria: Okay. Just briefly. And I think I’m going back to where I was. If you’ve got the ability to do something about capacity building, go do it. And if you’ve got the ability to support and pay for somebody to do it, start paying.

Janice Richardson: Wow, they’re very good final words. So thank you very much for participating in this session. I hope you really got something out of it. I do hope I gave you the possibility to have your say also. And let’s try and work much more closely together as Dynamic Coalitions, and let’s do it! Let’s do it, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Capacity building is fundamentally a human rights issue

Speakers

– Jutta Croll
– Avri Doria
– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Ayden Férdeline
– Eleni Boursinou

Arguments

Capacity building is essential for realizing human rights in the digital age, including non-discrimination, freedom of speech, access to information, privacy, and peaceful assembly

Education and capacity building are fundamental human rights that require organized knowledge transfer and practical training

Persons with disabilities represent the largest minority but have minimal participation in internet governance discussions despite 20 years of IGF sessions

Financial rights derive from and enable other human rights, making digital financial literacy a fundamental requirement for human rights realization

Open Educational Resources are instruments for participation, empowerment and rights realization, not just tools for access

Summary

All speakers agree that capacity building is not merely a technical or educational issue but is fundamentally about enabling human rights realization in the digital age, whether for children, persons with disabilities, financial inclusion, or general digital participation

Topics

Human rights | Development

Current systems and platforms lack adequate accessibility and inclusion

Speakers

– Jutta Croll
– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Ayden Férdeline

Arguments

Services should be adapted to people’s needs rather than training people to cope with insufficiently designed services

Quality standards for training and accessibility of platforms remain inadequate, with many online courses failing accessibility audits

Digital participation is no longer optional but foundational to realizing human rights, affecting people whether they actively participate or not

Summary

Speakers agree that current digital systems, platforms, and services are inadequately designed for inclusive access, requiring fundamental changes in design philosophy rather than just training users to adapt to poor systems

Topics

Human rights | Infrastructure | Development

Funding and resource allocation are critical barriers to effective capacity building

Speakers

– Avri Doria
– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Jutta Croll

Arguments

Education requires significant funding for teachers, materials, methodologies, and assistive technology, which is consistently missing from capacity building initiatives

Persons with disabilities represent the largest minority but have minimal participation in internet governance discussions despite 20 years of IGF sessions

Capacity building efforts are always lagging behind rapid technological developments, requiring parallel development of technology and education

Summary

All speakers acknowledge that despite widespread recognition of the need for capacity building, adequate funding and resources are consistently lacking, creating a persistent gap between aspirations and implementation

Topics

Development | Economic

Bottom-up, grassroots approaches are more effective than top-down solutions

Speakers

– Avri Doria
– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Ayden Férdeline

Arguments

Individual and small group initiatives by devoted people can create examples that multiply and influence others, representing a bottom-up approach

People with disabilities should move beyond participation to decision-making roles, following the principle ‘nothing about us without us’

Civil society can use naming and shaming, scorecards, and conditional funding to pressure governments and organizations into compliance

Summary

Speakers agree that meaningful change in capacity building comes from grassroots initiatives, community leadership, and civil society pressure rather than waiting for large-scale institutional solutions

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that digital divides have evolved beyond simple access issues to more complex literacy and societal divisions, with technology itself contributing to social stratification

Speakers

– Jutta Croll
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

The digital divide has evolved into a digital literacy divide that continues to widen over time

Technology is creating a societal divide between those who can analyze and distance themselves from technology versus those who are manipulated by it

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Both emphasize the critical need for quality standards and institutional frameworks to ensure that capacity building platforms and content are truly accessible and inclusive

Speakers

– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Eleni Boursinou

Arguments

Quality standards for training and accessibility of platforms remain inadequate, with many online courses failing accessibility audits

Institutional frameworks and standards are needed to ensure inclusive digital public infrastructure as both a right and shared responsibility

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights

Both recognize the interconnected and multidimensional nature of digital issues, emphasizing the need for cross-cutting collaboration and comprehensive approaches to capacity building

Speakers

– Ayden Férdeline
– Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Arguments

Dynamic Coalitions should work together across different domains since issues like financial inclusion intersect with cybersecurity, accessibility, and gender issues

Capacity building is as multidimensional as the digital economy itself, encompassing technical skills, mindset, governance, and multidisciplinary collaboration

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Design philosophy should prioritize adaptation of services to users rather than training users to adapt to poor services

Speakers

– Jutta Croll
– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Services should be adapted to people’s needs rather than training people to cope with insufficiently designed services

Quality standards for training and accessibility of platforms remain inadequate, with many online courses failing accessibility audits

Technology is creating a societal divide between those who can analyze and distance themselves from technology versus those who are manipulated by it

Explanation

This represents unexpected consensus because it challenges the traditional approach to capacity building, which typically focuses on training users to use existing systems. Instead, speakers from different domains (children’s rights, disability rights, internet standards) all converged on the idea that the fundamental problem lies in poor system design rather than user capability

Topics

Human rights | Infrastructure | Development

Individual and small-scale initiatives are more effective than large-scale institutional solutions

Speakers

– Avri Doria
– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Ayden Férdeline

Arguments

Individual and small group initiatives by devoted people can create examples that multiply and influence others, representing a bottom-up approach

People with disabilities should move beyond participation to decision-making roles, following the principle ‘nothing about us without us’

Civil society can use naming and shaming, scorecards, and conditional funding to pressure governments and organizations into compliance

Explanation

This consensus is unexpected because it represents a shift away from traditional institutional approaches to capacity building. Speakers from different backgrounds (education, disability rights, financial inclusion) all independently concluded that grassroots, community-driven approaches are more effective than waiting for large-scale institutional change

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus across multiple key areas: viewing capacity building as fundamentally a human rights issue, recognizing systemic failures in current accessibility and inclusion efforts, acknowledging persistent funding barriers, and favoring bottom-up approaches over top-down solutions. There was also strong agreement on the need for design philosophy changes and cross-cutting collaboration among different domains.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for capacity building approaches. The agreement suggests a paradigm shift is needed from traditional training-focused capacity building to rights-based, inclusive design approaches that prioritize system adaptation over user adaptation. This consensus across diverse stakeholders (children’s rights, disability rights, financial inclusion, education, internet standards) indicates a mature understanding of capacity building challenges and points toward more effective, collaborative solutions that address root causes rather than symptoms.

Different viewpoints

Nature of the digital divide – digital vs societal

Speakers

– Jutta Croll
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

The digital divide has evolved into a digital literacy divide that continues to widen over time

Technology is creating a societal divide between those who can analyze and distance themselves from technology versus those who are manipulated by it

Summary

Jutta frames the issue as a ‘digital literacy divide’ focusing on skills and competencies needed for digital navigation, while Janice argues it’s more fundamentally a ‘societal divide’ caused by technology’s impact on how people think and make decisions

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Approach to solving capacity building challenges – large-scale vs individual action

Speakers

– Avri Doria
– Ayden Férdeline

Arguments

Individual and small group initiatives by devoted people can create examples that multiply and influence others, representing a bottom-up approach

Civil society can use naming and shaming, scorecards, and conditional funding to pressure governments and organizations into compliance

Summary

Avri advocates for a bottom-up approach through individual and small group initiatives, expressing pessimism about large-scale solutions, while Ayden proposes systematic approaches using civil society pressure mechanisms and institutional frameworks

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Design philosophy – adaptation direction

Speakers

– Jutta Croll
– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Arguments

Services should be adapted to people’s needs rather than training people to cope with insufficiently designed services

Quality standards for training and accessibility of platforms remain inadequate, with many online courses failing accessibility audits

Summary

While both agree on accessibility importance, Jutta emphasizes adapting services to users rather than training users to cope with poor design, while Dr. Shabbir focuses more on improving training quality and platform accessibility standards

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected differences

Optimism vs pessimism about systemic change

Speakers

– Avri Doria
– Ayden Férdeline

Arguments

Individual and small group initiatives by devoted people can create examples that multiply and influence others, representing a bottom-up approach

Civil society can use naming and shaming, scorecards, and conditional funding to pressure governments and organizations into compliance

Explanation

Unexpected because both speakers share similar concerns about funding and implementation challenges, yet Avri expresses consistent pessimism about large-scale solutions while Ayden maintains optimism about systematic civil society approaches. This philosophical difference affects their proposed solutions despite shared problem identification

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Terminology and framing of digital challenges

Speakers

– Jutta Croll
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

The digital divide has evolved into a digital literacy divide that continues to widen over time

Technology is creating a societal divide between those who can analyze and distance themselves from technology versus those who are manipulated by it

Explanation

Unexpected because both speakers work in related fields and share concerns about digital exclusion, yet they frame the fundamental problem differently. Jutta uses traditional digital divide terminology while Janice rejects it entirely in favor of societal divide framing, suggesting different underlying theories about technology’s role in society

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The disagreements center on three main areas: the nature and framing of digital divides, approaches to implementing solutions (bottom-up vs systematic), and design philosophy regarding user adaptation vs service adaptation

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with significant implications. While speakers share common goals of inclusive capacity building and human rights realization, their different approaches could lead to conflicting strategies and resource allocation. The disagreements reflect deeper philosophical differences about how social change occurs and the role of technology in society, which could impact the effectiveness of collaborative efforts among Dynamic Coalitions

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that digital divides have evolved beyond simple access issues to more complex literacy and societal divisions, with technology itself contributing to social stratification

Speakers

– Jutta Croll
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

The digital divide has evolved into a digital literacy divide that continues to widen over time

Technology is creating a societal divide between those who can analyze and distance themselves from technology versus those who are manipulated by it

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Both emphasize the critical need for quality standards and institutional frameworks to ensure that capacity building platforms and content are truly accessible and inclusive

Speakers

– Dr. Muhammad Shabbir
– Eleni Boursinou

Arguments

Quality standards for training and accessibility of platforms remain inadequate, with many online courses failing accessibility audits

Institutional frameworks and standards are needed to ensure inclusive digital public infrastructure as both a right and shared responsibility

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights

Both recognize the interconnected and multidimensional nature of digital issues, emphasizing the need for cross-cutting collaboration and comprehensive approaches to capacity building

Speakers

– Ayden Férdeline
– Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Arguments

Dynamic Coalitions should work together across different domains since issues like financial inclusion intersect with cybersecurity, accessibility, and gender issues

Capacity building is as multidimensional as the digital economy itself, encompassing technical skills, mindset, governance, and multidisciplinary collaboration

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Capacity building is a fundamental human rights issue essential for digital participation and realizing rights like non-discrimination, freedom of speech, and access to information

The digital divide has evolved into a digital literacy divide that continues to widen, creating societal divisions between those who can critically analyze technology and those manipulated by it

Digital participation is no longer optional but foundational to human rights realization, affecting people whether they actively participate or not

Persons with disabilities remain severely underrepresented in internet governance despite being the largest minority group

Funding is the critical missing element – education requires significant resources for teachers, materials, methodologies, and assistive technology that are consistently absent

Capacity building efforts consistently lag behind rapid technological developments, requiring parallel development of technology and education

Services should be adapted to people’s needs rather than training people to cope with insufficiently designed services

Individual and small group initiatives by devoted people can create scalable examples through bottom-up approaches when large-scale solutions seem intractable

Quality standards for training and platform accessibility remain inadequate, with many online courses failing accessibility audits

Resolutions and action items

Dynamic Coalitions should work together across different domains since issues intersect (financial inclusion with cybersecurity, accessibility, gender issues)

Civil society should create scorecards to evaluate national implementation of Global Digital Compact provisions

Use naming and shaming tactics, conditional funding, and peer pressure to enforce compliance with accessibility and inclusion standards

Build parallel infrastructure and support open-source rights-based digital public goods when state enforcement fails

Develop quality standards for training programs and accessibility requirements

Create shadow reports by civil society to complement official government reports on convention implementation

Move people with disabilities from participation to decision-making roles following ‘nothing about us without us’ principle

Unresolved issues

How to secure consistent funding for capacity building initiatives when governments and organizations consistently fail to allocate resources

How to keep capacity building programs current with rapidly evolving technology when funding and development cycles are too slow

How to change societal mindsets about the importance of capacity building across different cultural contexts and stakeholder groups

Whether the IGF structure should be reformed from 2026 onwards to better translate Dynamic Coalition work into actionable outcomes

How to ensure quality standards and oversight for online training platforms and courses

How to effectively implement Global Digital Compact provisions at national levels without clear enforcement mechanisms

Whether reporting on international conventions accurately reflects ground-level reality and impact

How to prepare for future technological developments and governance challenges when current capacity building is already inadequate

Suggested compromises

When financial constraints prevent full implementation of accessibility guidelines, prioritize through discussion with affected communities rather than unilateral decision-making

Combine multiple enforcement mechanisms (government action, civil society pressure, private sector responsibility, philanthropic funding) rather than relying on any single approach

Focus on individual and small group initiatives that can scale up rather than waiting for large-scale systemic solutions

Adapt capacity building approaches to different cultural contexts and stakeholder needs rather than seeking universal solutions

Balance bottom-up grassroots initiatives with institutional frameworks and standards to create comprehensive approaches

I wouldn’t talk about a digital divide. I think it’s more a societal divide and I think that it’s the technology that has pushed us towards the societal divide. Those who really can rise above what they see online, analyse it and take a distance from it, and those who are pushed around by technology.

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by challenging the commonly accepted terminology of ‘digital divide’ and repositioning the problem as fundamentally societal rather than technical. It introduces the concept that technology itself is an active agent in creating division, rather than just a neutral tool that some can access and others cannot.

Impact

This reframing shifted the conversation from focusing on access and technical skills to examining the deeper psychological and social impacts of technology. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider capacity building not just as skill development, but as developing critical thinking and agency in relation to technology.

Persons with disabilities are considered to be the largest minority on earth. And unfortunately, when it comes to their participation in IG discussions, their number can be counted on fingers and we still have some fingers left… This raises a question, are we building the capacities in the right manner or do we need to do something else?

Speaker

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Reason

This stark statistical reality check challenged the entire premise of current capacity building efforts. By highlighting the massive underrepresentation despite 20 years of IGF discussions, it forced participants to confront the possibility that their approaches might be fundamentally flawed.

Impact

This comment created a turning point where the discussion moved from theoretical frameworks to examining systemic failures. It prompted other speakers to question whether the problem was just funding or something deeper – institutional willingness and design philosophy.

Digital participation is no longer optional. It is foundational to realizing human rights. It is happening to you whether you opt to participate or not.

Speaker

Aydan Férdeline

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the notion of digital participation as a choice, reframing it as an unavoidable reality that affects everyone regardless of their level of engagement. It elevates digital capacity building from a development issue to a human rights imperative.

Impact

This insight shifted the conversation from discussing how to encourage participation to recognizing that everyone is already affected by digital systems. It influenced the discussion toward viewing capacity building as a fundamental right rather than an optional service.

Let’s not try to adapt people to the service by training them to cope with the insufficiently designed services, which are not designed for their needs, but adapt the service to the people.

Speaker

Jutta Croll

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the entire approach to capacity building by questioning whether the burden should be on users to adapt to poorly designed systems rather than fixing the systems themselves. It represents a paradigm shift from user-focused solutions to system-focused solutions.

Impact

This was a pivotal moment that reframed the entire discussion. Instead of focusing on how to better train people to use inadequate systems, it challenged participants to consider whether they were addressing the wrong problem entirely. It influenced the final tone of the session toward more critical examination of current approaches.

Educating people never, ever, ever comes for free. Not only do you have to pay teachers, but you have to have materials… And yet never ever have they ever said, and we’re going to dedicate a certain amount of resource to building the skills.

Speaker

Avri Doria

Reason

This comment cuts through the idealistic rhetoric about capacity building to expose the fundamental economic reality that has been consistently ignored in policy documents. It provides a brutally honest assessment of why capacity building initiatives repeatedly fail.

Impact

This reality check shifted the discussion from theoretical frameworks to practical constraints. It influenced subsequent speakers to acknowledge funding as a central rather than peripheral issue, and led to more concrete discussions about alternative funding mechanisms and enforcement strategies.

We are always a little bit or maybe a big step behind these developments. So when we are going for funding, that takes time. Then we get the funding, we do the research, and what we want to research is maybe just a step ahead.

Speaker

Jutta Croll

Reason

This comment identifies a fundamental structural problem with how capacity building research and implementation works – the mismatch between the speed of technological change and the pace of institutional response. It highlights a systemic issue that goes beyond funding to institutional agility.

Impact

This observation prompted discussion about the need for parallel development of technology and capacity building, rather than reactive approaches. It influenced thinking toward more proactive and integrated approaches to capacity building.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed what began as a conventional discussion about capacity building techniques into a critical examination of underlying assumptions and systemic failures. The conversation evolved from ‘how do we build capacity better’ to ‘are we approaching this problem correctly at all?’ The most impactful comments challenged basic premises – that digital divides are about access rather than societal structure, that capacity building should focus on user adaptation rather than system design, and that good intentions without funding commitments are meaningful. This created a more honest and potentially transformative dialogue that moved beyond surface-level solutions to examine root causes and structural barriers. The discussion’s trajectory showed how challenging fundamental assumptions can lead to more productive and realistic approaches to complex social problems.

How do we get the clauses from the Global Digital Compact implemented in member states?

Speaker

Gonilla Astbrink

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap between policy commitments and actual implementation, particularly regarding digital literacy, capacity building, and accessible interfaces for persons with disabilities

How can the IGF be restructured from 2026 onwards to better translate Dynamic Coalition work into actionable outcomes?

Speaker

Wout (representing DC on Internet Standards, Security and Safety)

Explanation

This questions whether the current IGF structure effectively enables the 32 Dynamic Coalitions to share messages and create impact, suggesting need for organizational reform

How do we develop quality standards for training the trainers in capacity building programs?

Speaker

Jutta Croll

Explanation

This addresses the lack of oversight and standardization in online training courses and capacity building programs, which affects the quality and effectiveness of education

Do multilateral agencies conduct proper monitoring and evaluation that matches the reality on the ground, especially regarding disability statistics and impact?

Speaker

Emmanuel Orok (online participant from Uganda)

Explanation

This highlights the potential disconnect between official reporting on conventions like CPRD and actual implementation and impact in communities

Have we built the capacities to prepare ourselves for what is coming next with WSIS+20 review and the future of IGF?

Speaker

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir

Explanation

This questions whether the community is adequately prepared for upcoming changes in internet governance structures and processes

Who trains the trainer and how do we ensure quality in cascading capacity building efforts?

Speaker

Ayden Férdeline

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of scaling capacity building programs while maintaining quality and effectiveness

How do we develop strategies to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology in capacity building curricula?

Speaker

Jutta Croll

Explanation

This addresses the challenge that educational strategies and curricula are always lagging behind technological developments, making capacity building less effective

How do we quantify capacity building gaps and benchmark progress to demonstrate the economic case for investment?

Speaker

Ayden Férdeline

Explanation

This is important for making compelling arguments to funders and stakeholders about the need for capacity building investments

How do we develop quality assurance mechanisms for online courses and content in the AI era?

Speaker

Eleni Boursinou

Explanation

This addresses the growing challenge of ensuring quality and reliability of educational content as AI-generated materials become more prevalent

How can we create parallel infrastructure and alternatives when state enforcement of digital rights fails?

Speaker

Ayden Férdeline

Explanation

This explores alternative approaches to ensuring digital rights and inclusion when traditional governmental mechanisms are insufficient