Dear readers,
Welcome to our overview of statements delivered during Day 2 at UNGA’s high-level meeting on the WSIS+20 review.
Speakers repeatedly underscored that the WSIS vision remains relevant, but that it needs to be matched with concrete action, sustained cooperation, and inclusive governance arrangements. Digital transformation was framed as both an opportunity and a risk: a powerful accelerator of sustainable development, resilience, and service delivery, but also a driver of new inequalities if structural gaps, concentration of power, and governance challenges are left unaddressed. Digital public infrastructure and digital public goods were highlighted as foundations for inclusive development, while persistent digital divides were described as urgent and unresolved. Artificial intelligence (AI) featured prominently as a general-purpose technology with transformative potential, but also with risks related to exclusion, labour, environmental sustainability, and governance capacity.
Particular attention was given to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), with widespread support for its permanent mandate, alongside calls to strengthen its funding, working modalities, and participation.
Throughout the day, speakers reaffirmed that no single stakeholder can deliver digital development alone, and that WSIS must continue to function as a people-centred, multistakeholder framework aligned with the SDGs and the Global Digital Compact (GDC).
DW team
Information and communication technologies for development
Digital transformation is no longer optional, underpinning early warning systems, disaster preparedness, climate adaptation, education, health services, and economic diversification, especially for Small Island Developing States (Fiji).
ICTs were widely framed as key enablers of sustainable development, innovation, resilience, and inclusive growth, and as major accelerators of the 2030 Agenda, particularly in contexts facing economic, climate, or security challenges (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ukraine, Fiji, Colombia). It was noted that technologies, AI, and digital transformation must serve humanity through education, culture, science, communication, and information (UNESCO).
Strong emphasis was placed on digital public infrastructure (DPI) and digital public goods (DPGs) as foundations for inclusion, innovation, growth and public value (UNDP, Trinidad and Tobago, Malaysia). Digital public infrastructure was emphasised as needing to be secure, interoperable, and rights-based, grounded in safeguards, open systems, and public-interest governance (UNDP).
Digital commons, open-source solutions, and community-driven knowledge infrastructures were highlighted as central to sustainable development outcomes (IT for Change, Wikimedia, OIF). DPGs, such as open-source platforms, have been developed by stakeholders brought together by the WSIS process. However, member states need to create conditions for DPGs’ continued success within the WSIS framework (Wikimedia). Libraries were identified as global digital public infrastructure and significant public goods, with calls for their systematic integration into digital inclusion strategies and WSIS implementation efforts (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions).
Persistent inequalities in sharing digitalisation gains were highlighted. While more than 6 billion people are online globally, low-income countries continue to lag significantly, including in digital commerce participation, underscoring the need for short-term policy choices that secure inclusive and sustainable development outcomes in the long term (UNCTAD).
The positive impact of digital technologies is considerably lower in developing countries compared to that in developed countries (Cuba). Concerns were raised that developing countries risk being locked into technological dependence, further deepening global asymmetries if left unaddressed (Colombia).
Environmental impacts
An environmentally sustainable information society was emphasised, with calls to align digital and green transformations to address climate change and resource scarcity, and to harness ICTs to achieve the SDGs (China).
Digital innovation was described as needing to support environmental sustainability and responsible resource use, ensuring positive long-term social and economic outcomes (Thailand).
The enabling environment for digital development
Speakers reaffirmed that enabling environments are central to the WSIS vision of a people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. Predictable, coherent, and transparent policy frameworks were highlighted as essential for enabling innovation and investment, and for ensuring that all countries can benefit from the digital economy (Microsoft, ICC).
These environments were linked to openness and coherence, including regulatory clarity and predictability, support for the free flow of information across borders, avoidance of unnecessary fragmentation, and the promotion of interoperability and scalable digital solutions (ICC). The importance of developing policies through dialogue with relevant stakeholders was also stressed (ICC).
Several speakers underlined that enabling environments must address persistent development gaps. The uneven distribution of the benefits of the information society, particularly in developing countries, was noted, alongside calls for enhanced international cooperation to facilitate investment, innovation, effective governance, and access to financial and technological resources (Holy See). Partnerships across all sectors were seen as essential to mobilise financing, capacity building, and technology transfer, given that governments cannot deliver alone (Fiji).
Divergent views were expressed on unilateral coercive measures. Some speakers argued that such measures impede economic and social development and hinder digital transformation, calling for international cooperation focused on capacity building, technology transfer, and financing of public digital infrastructure (Eritrea, Cuba). In contrast, a delegation stated that economic sanctions are lawful, legitimate, and effective tools for addressing threats to peace and security (USA).
Governance frameworks were identified as a core component of enabling environments. It was stressed that digital development must be safe, equitable, and rooted in trust, with adequate governance frameworks ensuring transparency, accountability, user protection, and meaningful stakeholder participation in line with the multistakeholder approach (Thailand).
Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
Building confidence and security in the digital environment was framed as a prerequisite for realising the social and economic benefits of digitalisation, with trust and safety needing to be embedded across the entire digital ecosystem (Malaysia).
Trust was described as requiring regulation, accountability, and sustained public education to ensure that users can engage confidently with digital technologies (Malaysia).
Cybercrime was identified as a persistent and serious concern requiring concerted collective solutions beyond national approaches (Namibia).
Cybersecurity and cybercrime were highlighted as increasingly serious and complex challenges that undermine trust and risk eroding the socio-economic gains of digitalisation if left unaddressed (Thailand).
Investment in capacity building was emphasised as essential to strengthening national and individual resilience against cyber threats, alongside the adoption of security- and privacy-by-design principles (Thailand, International Federation for Information Processing).
Capacity development
Capacity development was consistently framed as a core enabler of inclusive digital transformation, with widespread recognition of persistent constraints in digital skills, institutional capacity, and governance capabilities (UNDP, Malaysia, Trinidad and Tobago).
Capacity development was identified as one of the most frequent requests from countries, particularly in relation to inclusive digital transformation (UNDP).
Effective capacity development was described as requiring institutional anchors, with centres of excellence highlighted as providing infrastructure and expertise that many countries—especially least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, and small island states—cannot afford independently (UNIDO).
Efforts are underway to establish a network of centres of excellence across the Global South, including in China, Ethiopia, the Western Balkans, Belarus, and Latin America (UNIDO).
Sustainable digital education was highlighted as essential, including fostering learner aspiration, addressing diversity and underrepresented communities, embedding computational thinking, and strengthening teacher preparation (International Federation for Information Processing). The emphasis should be on empowering people to understand information, question it, and use it wisely (UNESCO.
Libraries were highlighted as trusted, non-commercial public spaces that provide access to connectivity, devices, skills, and confidence-building support. For many people, particularly the most disenfranchised, libraries were described as the only way to get online and as key sources of diverse content and cultural heritage (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions).
Financial mechanisms
Financing was described as a critical and non-negotiable component of implementing the WSIS vision, with repeated warnings that without adequate and predictable public and private resources, WSIS commitments risk remaining aspirational (APC).
Effective implementation was described as requiring a shift from fragmented, project-based funding toward systems-level financing approaches capable of delivering impact at scale (UNDP).
Calls were made for adequate, predictable, and accessible funding for digital infrastructure and capacity development, particularly to ensure effective participation of developing countries and the Global South (Colombia).
Support was expressed for the proposed establishment of a working group on future financial mechanisms for digital development, provided it focuses on the concrete needs of developing countries (Eritrea).
Financing challenges were also linked to linguistic and cultural diversity, with calls for decentralisation of computing capacity and ambitious strategies to finance digital development and AI, building on proposals by the UN Secretary-General (OIF).
Calls were made for UNGIS and ITU to ensure inclusive participation in the interagency financing task force and to approach the IGF’s permanent mandate with creativity and ambition (APC).
Existing financing mechanisms were highlighted for their tangible impact, including funds that have mobilised resources for digital infrastructure in more than 100 countries (Kuwait).
Human rights and the ethical dimensions of the information society
Human rights were reaffirmed as a foundational pillar of the WSIS vision, grounded in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with emphasis on ensuring that the same rights people enjoy offline are protected online (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Costa Rica, Austria).
Anchoring WSIS in international human rights law was highlighted as essential to preserving an open, free, interoperable, reliable, and secure internet, particularly amid trends toward fragmentation, surveillance-based governance, and concentration of technological power (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, OHCHR).
The centrality of human rights and the multistakeholder character of digital governance were described as practical conditions for legitimacy and effectiveness, particularly as freedom online declines and civic space shrinks (GPD, APC).
Concerns were raised about harms associated with profit-driven algorithmic systems and platform design, including addiction, mental health impacts, polarisation, extremism, and erosion of trustworthy information, with particularly severe effects in developing countries (HitRecord, Brazil).
A rights-based approach to digital governance was described as necessary to ensure accountability, participation, impact assessment, and protection of rights such as privacy, non-discrimination, and freedom of expression (OHCHR, ICC).
Divergent views were expressed on content regulation. Some cautioned against any threats to freedom of speech and expression (USA), while others emphasised the legitimate authority of states to regulate the digital domain to protect citizens and uphold the principle that what is illegal offline must also be illegal online (Brazil).
Ethical frameworks were emphasised to protect privacy, personal data, children, women, and vulnerable groups, and to orient digital development toward human dignity, justice, and the common good, including embedding ethical principles by design and protecting cultural diversity and the rights of artists and creators in AI-driven environments (UNESCO, Holy See, International Federation for Information Processing, Costa Rica, Kuwait, Colombia, Foundation Cibervoluntarios, Eritrea).
Concerns were raised about trends toward a more fragmented and state-centric internet, with warnings that such shifts pose risks to human rights, including privacy and freedom of expression, and could undermine the open and global nature of the internet (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance).
Data governance
The growing importance of data was linked to the expansion of AI (UNCTAD). Unlocking the value of data in a responsible manner was presented as a common problem and a civilizational challenge (Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network). Concerns were raised about an innovation economy built on data extractivism, dispossession, and disenfranchisement, with countries and people from the Global South resisting unjust trade arrangements and seeking to reclaim the internet and its promise (IT for Change).
Artificial intelligence
AI was described as a general-purpose technology at the centre of the technological revolution, shaping economic growth, national security, global competitiveness, and development trajectories (Brazil, the USA).
Concerns were raised that AI is currently being developed and deployed largely according to market-driven and engagement-maximising business models, similar to those that shaped social media. Without practical guardrails, AI risks reproducing harmful effects, and so governments need to move beyond historically hands-off approaches and play a more active role in governance (HitRecord).
Specific AI-related harms were identified, including deepfakes, rising environmental impacts from AI infrastructure (IT for Change), and labour impacts (Brazil). Concerns were expressed that AI adoption is contributing to job displacement and the fragilisation of labour rights, despite the centrality of decent work to the information society agenda (Brazil).
Noting uneven global capacities in AI development, deployment, and use, concerns were expressed that the speed of AI development may exceed the adaptive capacities of developing countries, including small island developing states, risking new forms of exclusion (Eritrea, Trinidad and Tobago). And it was highlighted that cultural and linguistic diversity is critically under-represented in AI systems (OIF).
Calls were made for AI governance frameworks to address AI-related risks and ensure that the technology is placed at the service of humanity (Kuwait, Namibia). Divergent views were expressed on governance approaches, with some cautioning against additional bureaucracy, while others stressed that relying on market forces alone will not ensure AI benefits all people (USA, HitRecord). It was also said that the UN should not shy away from looking into AI governance matters (Brazil).
From an industrial perspective, it was noted that regulation often lags behind AI developments, with support expressed for evidence-based policymaking and regulatory testbeds to de-risk innovation and translate AI strategies into practice (UNIDO).
Ethical safeguards were emphasised as essential, with AI described as opening new horizons for creativity while also raising serious concerns about its impact on humanity’s relationship to truth, beauty, and contemplation (Holy See).
Internet governance
Widespread support was expressed for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), described as a central pillar of the WSIS architecture and a cornerstone of global digital cooperation (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, GPD, APC, ICANN, ICC, UNESCO, Austria, Africa ICT Alliance, Meta, Italy, Colombia). Making the IGF permanent was seen as an affirmation of confidence in the multistakeholder model and its continued relevance for addressing governance issues (APC, ICC, OHCHR).
The IGF was also described as a unique and inclusive multistakeholder space, bringing together governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia, and international organisations on equal footing. This model was credited with helping the internet remain global, interoperable, resilient, and stable through periods of rapid technological and geopolitical change (Microsoft, ICANN, IGF Leadership Panel, Meta).
Several speakers highlighted that the IGF has evolved into a self-organised global network, with more than 170 national, regional, sub-regional, and youth IGFs, enabling voices from remote, marginalised, and under-represented communities to feed into global discussions and bridge the gap between high-level diplomacy and ground-level implementation (Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network, IGF Leadership Panel, Africa ICT Alliance, Internet Society). At the same time, it was stressed that while the IGF represents a remarkable institutional innovation, it has not yet fulfilled its full potential. Calls were made to continue improving its working modalities, clarify its institutional evolution, and ensure sustainable and predictable funding (Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network, Brazil, ICANN).
Protecting and reaffirming the multistakeholder model of internet governance was repeatedly identified as important to the success of WSIS implementation. This model – anchored in dialogue, transparency, inclusivity, and accountability – was presented as a practical governance tool rather than a symbolic principle, ensuring that those who build, use, and regulate the internet can jointly shape its future (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Wikimedia, Microsoft, ICANN, ICC).
At the same time, several speakers stressed the need for stronger and more effective government participation in governance processes. It was noted that governments have legitimate roles and responsibilities in shaping digital policy, and that intergovernmental spaces must be strengthened so that all governments – particularly those from developing countries – can effectively perform their roles in global digital governance (APC, Brazil, Cuba). In this context, there was also a concern that calls for greater government engagement in the IGF have been framed primarily toward developing countries, with emphasis placed instead on the need for equal-footing participation of governments from all regions to ensure the forum’s long-term sustainability (APC).
Monitoring and measurement
It was noted that WSIS+20 must deliver measurable commitments with verifiable indicators (Costa Rica). And a streamlined and inclusive monitoring and review framework was seen as essential moving forward (Cuba).
WSIS framework, follow-up and implementation
There was broad recognition that the WSIS framework remains a central reference for a people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented information society, while requiring reinforcement to respond to growing complexity, concentration of digital power, and risks posed by advanced AI systems (Costa Rica, Malaysia, Cuba).
The multistakeholder model was repeatedly reaffirmed as a cornerstone of the WSIS vision, anchored in dialogue, transparency, inclusivity, and accountability, and seen as essential to maintaining a resilient and open digital ecosystem (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, GPD, USA, Meta, ICC, Italy, Thailand). The inclusive nature of the WSIS+20 review process itself was highlighted, with the Informal Multi-Stakeholder Sounding Board described as enabling substantive contributions from diverse stakeholder groups that helped identify both achievements and gaps in WSIS implementation over the past 20 years (WSIS+20 Co-Facilitators Informal Multi-Stakeholder Sounding Board).
Speaking of inclusivity, many speakers stressed that no single stakeholder can deliver digital development alone, and called for collaboration among governments, private sector, civil society, academia, technical communities, and international organisations to mobilise resources, share knowledge, transfer technology, and support nationally driven digital strategies (ICC, Namibia, Italy, Thailand). There were also calls to include knowledge actors such as universities, libraries, archives, cultural figures, and public media, reflecting that digital governance now concerns the status of knowledge itself (OIF). Youth representatives called for funded programmes, institutionalised youth seats in WSIS action line implementation, and recognition of young people as co-designers of digital policy (AI for Good Young Leaders).
On matters related to WSIS action lines, human rights expertise was highlighted as requiring a stronger and more systematic role within the WSIS architecture (GPD, OHCHR). And gender equality was welcomed as an explicit implementation priority within WSIS action lines (APC).
Strengthening UN system-wide coherence was highlighted as a priority, including clearer action line roadmaps and improved coordination across the UN system (GPD, UNDP). Alignment among WSIS, the Global Digital Compact (GDC), the Pact for the Future, and the SDGs was seen as necessary to maximise impact and avoid duplication (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Meta, Brazil, Colombia, Austria, Cuba). At the same time, one delegation expressed reservations about references to the GDC in the final outcome document, noting also concerns about what they considered to be international organisations setting a standard that legitimises international governance of the internet (USA).
Looking ahead, the task was framed not as preserving WSIS, but reinforcing it so that it remains future-proof, capable of anticipating rapid technological change while staying anchored in people-centred values, human rights, and inclusive governance (UNESCO, GPD). It was also stressed that for many in the Global South, the WSIS vision remains aspirational, and that the next phase must ensure the information society becomes an effective right rather than an empty promise (Cuba).
Comments regarding the outcome document
In the last segment of the meeting, several delegations made statements regarding the WSIS+20 outcome document.
Some expressed concern about the limited transparency, inclusiveness, and predictability in the final phase of negotiations, stating that the process did not fully reflect multilateral dialogue and affected trust and collective ownership of the document (India, Israel, Iraq on behalf of Group of 77 and China, Iran).
Reservations were placed on language perceived as going beyond the WSIS mandate or national policy space, with reaffirmation of national sovereignty and the right of states to determine their own regulatory, social, and cultural frameworks. Concerns were raised regarding references to gender-related terminology, sexual and reproductive health, sexual and gender-based violence, misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech (Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Iran, Nigeria). Concerns were also noted regarding references to international instruments to which some states are not parties, citing concerns related to national legislation, culture, and sovereignty (Saudi Arabia). Dissociations were recorded from paragraphs related to human rights, information integrity, and the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the digital sphere (Russian Federation). Concerns were further expressed that the outcome document advances what were described as divisive social themes, including climate change, gender, diversity, equity and inclusion, and the right to development (the USA).
Several delegations expressed concern that references to unilateral coercive measures were weakened and did not reflect their negative impact on access to technology, capacity building, and digital infrastructure in developing countries (Iraq on behalf of Group of 77 and China, Russian Federation, Iran). Others noted that such measures adopted in accordance with international law are legitimate foreign policy tools for addressing threats to peace and security (USA, Ukraine).
Some delegations noted that the outcome document does not sufficiently reflect the development dimension, particularly with regard to concrete commitments on financing, technology transfer, and capacity building, and that the absence of references to common but differentiated responsibilities weakens the development pillar (India, Iraq on behalf of Group of 77 and China, Iran). It was also said that the document does not adequately address the impacts of automation and artificial intelligence on labour and employment, despite requests from developing countries (Iraq on behalf of the Group of 77 and China).
While support for the multistakeholder nature of internet governance and the permanent nature of the IGF was noted, concerns were expressed that the outcome treats the IGF as a substitute rather than a complement to enhanced intergovernmental cooperation, and that the language regarding the intergovernmental segment for dialogue among governments has been weakened. It was said that intergovernmental spaces need to be strengthened so that all governments, particularly those from developing countries, can perform their roles in global governance (Iran, Iraq on behalf of Group of 77 and China).
Serious reservations were placed on language viewed as legitimising international governance of the Internet, with opposition expressed to references to the Global Digital Compact, the Summit for the Future, and the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, alongside reaffirmed support for a multistakeholder model of internet governance (USA).
Despite these reservations, several delegations stated that they joined the consensus in the interest of multilateralism and unity, while placing their positions and dissociations on record (India, Iraq on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, Iran, Nigeria, USA).
For a detailed summary of the discussions, including session transcripts and data statistics from the WSIS+20 High-Level meeting, visit our dedicated web page, where we are following the event. To explore the WSIS+20 review process in more depth, including its objectives and ongoing developments, see the dedicated WSIS+20 web page.
.
