Uncategorized

Summary

This high-level dialogue focused on the role of parliamentarians in shaping the digital future, co-organized by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the International Parliamentary Union (IPU). The discussion brought together parliamentarians from Egypt, Uruguay, Tanzania, and Thailand to address digital policy challenges and opportunities in their respective countries.

ITU Secretary-General Doreen Bogdan-Martin opened by highlighting that while digital innovation has created opportunities for economic growth and civic engagement, one-third of humanity still lacks internet access. She emphasized that parliamentarians are uniquely positioned to ensure digital technologies serve the public good through transparent, inclusive, and rights-based legislation. IPU Secretary-General Martin Chungong stressed the need for parliamentarians to stay ahead of technological developments, noting that the IPU has adopted resolutions on AI’s impact on democracy and human rights.

The parliamentarians shared both hopes and concerns about their digital futures. Egypt’s Amira Saber celebrated bringing 12 million people online and launching nationwide 5G, while expressing concerns about freedom of expression and the digital divide. Uruguay’s Rodrigo Goni emphasized that parliamentarians cannot remain reactive but must develop “political intelligence” to anticipate technological changes. Tanzania’s Neema Lugangira highlighted the need for capacity building and access to AI tools for parliamentarians, particularly in developing countries. Thailand’s Senator Nophadol In na praised his country’s digital transformation while worrying about urban-rural digital divides and cybersecurity threats.

Key recommendations included creating mechanisms for parliamentarians to engage directly with tech companies, establishing policy radars to map global digital developments, improving online safety particularly for women, and developing debt-swap programs for digitalization. The discussion concluded with commitments from both ITU and IPU to continue supporting parliamentary capacity building and facilitating stakeholder collaboration in shaping inclusive digital policies.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **The Critical Role of Parliamentarians in Digital Governance**: Parliamentarians are positioned as key actors rather than observers in shaping digital policy, with responsibilities for creating ethical frameworks, ensuring inclusive access, and regulating emerging technologies like AI while representing citizen interests.

– **Digital Divide and Inclusion Challenges**: Persistent gaps between urban and rural areas, developed and developing nations, and different socioeconomic groups in accessing digital technologies, with emphasis on bringing connectivity to underserved populations and ensuring no one is left behind.

– **Need for Parliamentary Capacity Building**: Recognition that lawmakers cannot effectively regulate technologies they don’t understand, highlighting the urgent need for digital literacy training, technical skills development, and knowledge-sharing platforms for parliamentarians globally.

– **Balancing Innovation with Risk Management**: Discussion of both opportunities (economic growth, better services, employment) and threats (cybersecurity, online harassment, misinformation, threats to democracy) posed by rapid technological advancement, particularly AI.

– **Multi-stakeholder Collaboration Requirements**: Emphasis on the necessity of bringing together parliamentarians, tech companies, international organizations (ITU/IPU), civil society, and other stakeholders to address complex digital challenges that transcend traditional boundaries.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to establish how parliamentarians can effectively contribute to shaping a more inclusive and equitable digital future, while identifying specific support needs and collaborative frameworks between the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) to enhance parliamentary engagement in digital governance.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a tone of cautious optimism throughout. Speakers acknowledged significant challenges and risks while expressing hope about digital transformation’s potential. The tone was collaborative and solution-oriented, with parliamentarians sharing both concerns and concrete examples of progress in their countries. There was an underlying urgency about the need for immediate action, but this was balanced with practical, constructive suggestions for moving forward through partnership and capacity building.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Role/Title: Not specified in transcript, appears to be moderating/organizing the event

– **Doreen Bogdan-Martin** – Role/Title: Secretary-General of ITU (International Telecommunication Union)

– **Martin Chungong** – Role/Title: Secretary-General of IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union)

– **Amira Saber** – Role/Title: Member of the People’s Assembly in Egypt, introduced the first draft bill on AI governance in Egyptian parliament

– **Rodrigo Goni** – Role/Title: Member of the House of Representatives from Uruguay

– **Nophadol In na** – Role/Title: Senator from Thailand, Vice-chairperson of the Working Group on Science and Technology of IPU

– **Neema Lugangira** – Role/Title: Parliamentarian from Tanzania (specific parliamentary position not clearly specified in transcript)

**Additional speakers:**

None – all speakers mentioned in the transcript are included in the provided speakers names list.

# Comprehensive Report: High-Level Dialogue on Parliamentarians’ Role in Shaping the Digital Future

## Executive Summary

This high-level dialogue, organized as a closing session of the WSIS Forum and co-hosted by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), brought together parliamentarians from Egypt, Uruguay, Tanzania, and Thailand alongside international organization leaders to address the critical role of parliamentarians in digital governance. The discussion demonstrated strong consensus on key challenges and established a collaborative framework for enhanced parliamentary engagement in shaping an inclusive digital future, with concrete commitments for ongoing ITU-IPU cooperation.

## Opening Context and Framework

Session organizer Gitanjali Sah set the stage by emphasizing the importance of parliamentary engagement in digital governance and the opportunity presented by the upcoming WSIS+20 review in December.

ITU Secretary-General Doreen Bogdan-Martin established the discussion’s foundation by highlighting the dual nature of digital transformation: while digital innovation has created unprecedented opportunities for economic growth, learning, employment, and civic engagement, one-third of humanity still lacks internet access, with many more lacking the skills and resources to benefit from digital technologies. She emphasized that parliamentarians are uniquely positioned to ensure digital technologies serve the public good through transparent, inclusive, and rights-based legislation.

IPU Secretary-General Martin Chungong complemented this perspective by stressing the urgent need for parliamentarians to stay ahead of technological developments rather than merely responding to them. He highlighted the IPU’s Charter of Ethics on Science and Technology and noted that the IPU has already adopted resolutions on artificial intelligence’s impact on democracy and human rights, providing a roadmap for national-level parliamentary action. Chungong emphasized the importance of strengthening collaboration between policymakers and the scientific community to ensure evidence-based conversations.

## Parliamentary Perspectives: National Experiences and Achievements

### Egypt: Leading AI Governance Innovation

Amira Saber, Member of the People’s Assembly in Egypt who introduced the first draft bill on AI governance in Egyptian parliament, presented Egypt’s significant digital transformation achievements. She celebrated bringing 82% of Egyptians online and launching nationwide 5G infrastructure, including the symbolic launch at the pyramids. Her AI governance bill received support from 60 Egyptian MPs, demonstrating parliamentary engagement in digital policy.

Saber articulated a fundamental principle that resonated throughout the discussion: “We cannot regulate what we don’t understand, so there is a huge role for the IPU to get more parliamentarians capacitated on digital skills and how to govern for the best interest of the people.” She emphasized concerns about online safety, particularly regarding deepfakes and their disproportionate impact on women, noting that women can face life-threatening consequences from AI misuse.

She also advocated for innovative financing mechanisms, suggesting debt swap mechanisms for digitalization similar to climate debt swaps, recognizing the financial barriers facing Global South nations in digital development.

### Uruguay: Embracing Collaborative Governance

Rodrigo Goni, Member of the House of Representatives from Uruguay, provided insights into the need for adaptive governance approaches. He argued that “parliaments were always reactive. We looked at what was happening, and then we came up with a law. Now, it’s the other way around, because we cannot follow the speed of this digital era. A parliament that wants to tackle these issues reactively is useless.”

Goni introduced the concept of “political intelligence” as a framework for addressing digital challenges, emphasizing that cooperation is necessary for addressing digital safety and protection issues. His perspective highlighted the need for parliamentarians to develop anticipatory governance models rather than responding after problems emerge.

### Tanzania: Addressing Power Imbalances

Neema Lugangira, parliamentarian from Tanzania who rushed from her daughter’s graduation to attend the meeting, provided crucial insights into the power dynamics between global technology companies and developing nations’ governments. She observed that “most of the tech companies, especially the multinational tech companies, are from the global north… their annual turnover in terms of their sales at times is more than our national GDPs.”

This observation led to her recommendation that ITU and IPU facilitate mechanisms for bringing senior decision-makers from tech companies to meet directly with parliamentarians. Lugangira also highlighted how AI accelerates online gender-based violence, particularly against women in public office, undermining democratic participation.

She emphasized the importance of informed regulation: “We are only going to be able to regulate what we know. But if we remain not knowing it, we’re going to have stringent regulations, which then are not going to be helpful for the growth of the digital sector.”

### Thailand: Digital Transformation in Practice

Senator Nophadol In na from Thailand, serving as Vice-chairperson of the Working Group on Science and Technology of IPU, showcased Thailand’s comprehensive digital transformation under the Thailand 4.0 vision. He highlighted specific achievements including the Prachachat Internet project, PromptPay digital payment system, e-government applications, and the Personal Data Protection Act.

His contribution centered on human-centric governance principles: “Technology must serve people, not replace them. As we enter the age of AI… Our digital progress must be guided by human values and shared responsibility.” He also addressed emerging cybersecurity threats and emphasized the importance of AgriTech applications for rural development.

## Areas of Strong Consensus

### Parliamentary Capacity Building as Foundation

All speakers demonstrated unanimous agreement on the urgent need for parliamentary capacity building in digital technologies. This consensus emerged from the shared recognition that parliamentarians cannot effectively regulate technologies they don’t understand. The agreement encompassed technical skills development, access to AI tools for policy analysis, and knowledge-sharing platforms for global parliamentary cooperation.

### Digital Divide as Critical Challenge

There was universal agreement that the digital divide represents a critical challenge requiring coordinated action. Speakers consistently framed digital access as essential for inclusive development, with particular emphasis on rural and marginalized communities. This consensus extended beyond mere connectivity to encompass digital literacy, skills development, and meaningful participation in the digital economy.

### Proactive Parliamentary Engagement

All speakers agreed that parliamentarians must play an active role in shaping digital governance and policy. This consensus emerged from the shared recognition that traditional reactive approaches are inadequate for the speed of technological change, with strong support for collaborative and anticipatory governance models.

### Online Safety and Democratic Protection

Speakers shared deep concern about online safety issues, with particular emphasis on protecting women and vulnerable groups from digital harms. This consensus encompassed concerns about deepfakes, online gender-based violence, misinformation, and cybersecurity threats that undermine democratic participation.

### Multi-stakeholder Cooperation

All speakers emphasized that digital governance challenges require structured cooperation between governments, tech companies, civil society, and international organizations. The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) framework was recognized as providing a trusted platform for such collaboration over 20 years.

## Key Initiatives and Partnerships

### Women’s Leadership in Digital Governance

The discussion highlighted the Women Political Leaders partnership with Smart Africa and GIZ for the FEM AI champions initiative, demonstrating concrete efforts to enhance women’s participation in digital governance.

### Parliamentary Engagement Platforms

Several platforms for parliamentary engagement were mentioned, including the Internet Governance Forum parliamentary track in Norway focusing on misinformation and disinformation, and the upcoming parliamentary conference in Kuala Lumpur on responsible AI scheduled for November.

### ITU-IPU Collaboration

The discussion emphasized the natural partnership between ITU and IPU as “neighbors” in Geneva, with commitments for enhanced cooperation in capacity building and policy development.

## Concrete Recommendations and Commitments

### ITU-IPU Collaboration Framework

The discussion produced specific commitments for enhanced cooperation between ITU and IPU, including:

– Collaborative capacity building programs for parliamentarians in digital skills and AI understanding

– Extension of ITU’s AI Skills Coalition to include parliamentary capacity building opportunities

– Creation of mechanisms for improving parliamentarians’ access to AI tools, particularly for those from least developed countries

– Facilitation of direct engagement between senior tech company decision-makers and parliamentarians

### Upcoming Initiatives

The discussion established momentum for several initiatives:

– Continuation of discussions at the Global Conference of Speakers of Parliament with a special panel on parliament’s role in digital future

– Parliamentary conference in Kuala Lumpur on responsible AI

– Further development of connectivity initiatives with focus on rural areas

– Leveraging the WSIS+20 review in December as a key opportunity for parliamentary engagement

### Innovation in Financing and Access

Speakers identified the need for innovative approaches including:

– Corporate social responsibility programs from tech companies to provide subsidized access to AI tools

– Implementation of debt swap mechanisms for digitalization in developing countries

– Development of sustainable financing models for digital infrastructure and capacity building

## Ongoing Challenges and Future Considerations

### Capacity Building Implementation

While there was strong consensus on the need for parliamentary capacity building, the practical implementation of comprehensive training programs across diverse political and technological contexts remains a significant challenge requiring sustained commitment and resources.

### Global Equity in Digital Access

Questions about ensuring equitable access to expensive AI tools and digital infrastructure for parliamentarians and citizens in developing countries require continued attention and innovative financing solutions.

### Balancing Innovation and Regulation

The discussion highlighted the ongoing challenge of developing regulatory frameworks that protect citizens while enabling beneficial innovation, particularly in rapidly evolving areas like artificial intelligence.

### Technical Implementation

Complex technical issues such as identity verification, deepfake prevention, and cross-border data governance require continued technical and policy development.

## Strategic Implications and Future Directions

### Enhanced International Cooperation

The ITU-IPU partnership represents a model for how international organizations can support parliamentary capacity building and facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogue. The commitment to continued collaboration demonstrates the potential for sustained institutional support for parliamentary engagement in digital governance.

### Democratic Innovation Through Technology

The discussion highlighted opportunities for democratic innovation through digital technologies, including AI tools for policy analysis, enhanced citizen engagement platforms, and improved government service delivery, while maintaining focus on digital rights and inclusion.

### Proactive Governance Models

The consensus on moving beyond reactive governance approaches suggests a significant shift in how parliamentarians conceptualize their roles in technology policy, with implications for legislative processes and institutional capabilities.

## Conclusion

This high-level dialogue demonstrated both the urgency and the collaborative potential of parliamentary engagement in digital governance. The strong consensus on key challenges—digital divide, capacity building needs, online safety concerns, and the necessity of multi-stakeholder cooperation—provides a solid foundation for coordinated international action.

The commitments made by ITU and IPU to support parliamentary capacity building and facilitate stakeholder collaboration represent important steps toward more inclusive and effective digital governance. The concept of “political intelligence” and the emphasis on proactive, collaborative approaches suggest that parliamentarians are ready to embrace new models of governance appropriate for the digital age.

The discussion’s significance lies in demonstrating that parliamentarians from diverse regions and political systems can find common ground on digital governance challenges while building practical partnerships for implementation. The upcoming WSIS+20 review in December provides an immediate opportunity to translate these commitments into concrete action.

The collaborative spirit evident throughout the dialogue, combined with specific commitments for ongoing cooperation between ITU and IPU, suggests that this represents the beginning of sustained efforts to enhance parliamentary engagement in shaping an inclusive digital future. The emphasis on human-centric governance, democratic values, and international cooperation provides a strong foundation for addressing the complex challenges of digital transformation while ensuring that technology serves the public good.

Gitanjali Sah: We will soon begin our high-level dialogue, the role of parliamentarians in shaping our digital future. Thank you for your patience, and thank you for joining us here. We will begin in two minutes. We are just waiting for a few more participants to arrive who are engaged outside, and they will soon be entering the room. Thank you so much, and we will begin soon our exciting dialogue with the parliamentarians. We will begin in two minutes. We will begin in two minutes. We will begin in two minutes. We will begin in two minutes. We will begin in two minutes. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are about to start our high-level dialogue on the role of parliamentarians in shaping our digital future. This dialogue is co-organized by the International Telecommunication Union and the International Parliamentary Union. We invite our Secretary-Generals, Ms. Doreen Bogdan-Martin, Secretary-General of ITU, and Mr. Martin Chungong, IPU Secretary-General, to please lead the moderation of this high-level dialogue.

Doreen Bogdan-Martin: Thank you. Thank you. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I am most honored to open this crucial discussion as we wrap up this high-level week here in Geneva. The question before us today is what role lawmakers can take in terms of sharing and shaping our digital future. We have seen here a lot this week at the WSIS high-level event and also our AI for Good Global Summit. I hope you have also had a chance to explore that summit. What we have seen is that technology has evolved incredibly fast over the past two decades. While digital innovation has opened up incredible opportunities for economic growth, for learning, for employment, and even civic engagement, we know it has also exposed spark inequalities and left billions behind. One-third of humanity still does not have access to the Internet, and in millions and millions of and many more actually lack the skills and resources to truly benefit from the digital world. Policy decisions, particularly around emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, will be consequential in defining whether and how these technologies impact the lives and livelihoods of all people. This is where the role of parliamentarians come in, and it’s key. As elected representatives, you are uniquely placed to ensure that digital technologies serve the public good and reflect the values of transparency, inclusivity, accountability and human rights. Values that have been central to the WSIS action lines and have also been strengthened by the Global Digital Compact that was adopted last year by UN member states. Now I understand this is all easier said than done. Tech innovation is outpacing traditional legislative processes as well, and new governance challenges are emerging while we’re still wrestling with prior ones, all of which are being amplified in the era of artificial intelligence. So what can digital policy leaders do and legislators? I believe that we can and I believe that we must adapt by making sure lawmakers are digitally skilled with sufficient understanding of technologies like artificial intelligence to help guide ethical, inclusive and rights-based approaches to legislation. We can also double down on collaboration. As the UN Agency for Digital Technologies, ITU is working hard to strengthen engagement amongst lawmakers and the technical community. And this, of course, is where the World Summit on the Information Process also plays a crucial role. For over 20 years, the WSIS has provided a trusted platform. and Ms. Ngozi Ueno. We are proud to be a part of the digital platform where all stakeholders, including parliamentarians, can come together to carve out a path towards people-centered, development-oriented information societies. WSIS has built essential bridges between governments and the tech sector, empowered local communities with digital skills and infrastructure, and it continues to champion digital inclusion as a pillar of sustainable development. With the 20-year review of the WSIS process in December, this is our key opportunity. It’s our opportunity to recommit, double down on that WSIS vision, and make sure that this time-tested platform remains fit for the future. With that, ladies and gentlemen, I look to Gitanjali, but I think I can hand back to you or hand directly to my friend, the Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentarian Union, Martin. The floor is yours, please.

Martin Chungong: Thank you very much, Doreen, and Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this session. I really welcome the opportunity to bring the parliamentary dimension to the global conversations that are taking place at this WSIS Summit meeting. We believe, and Doreen, thank you for drawing attention to why Parliament should be part of the conversation. I share your views entirely. As we have grappled with the challenges of the new technology age, we believe that all hands are on the table. are welcome on deck, and parliamentarians have a crucial role to play. And I’m looking forward to the discussions that will take place during this particular meeting, which will give us a kind of a roadmap for what we need to do to support parliaments and parliamentarians in helping address the key challenges that are facing us in this new digital age. So, I welcome this opportunity, and I do so from the vantage point that the IPU, the Global Organization of Parliaments, needs to be in on the action, needs to convene parliaments so that they can contribute to the global discussion on how we address the challenges of the digital age. And for some time now, and this is in conformity with our strategy, we are looking at how parliaments should be ahead of the curve when it comes to managing the new digital age in a way that is responsible and beneficial to mankind, while at the same time minimizing the risks involved. And, Doreen, you mentioned in your statement that there are lots of opportunities, but there are lots of risks too. Our duty as lawmakers is to devise policies and provide resources that would allow us to help technology develop in a responsible fashion for the benefit of mankind, and also help reduce and minimize the risks involved. And in recent years, we have been very active. Just last October, we did adopt a resolution on the impact of AI on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. It is for us a roadmap, blueprint for parliaments to take action at the national level to make sure that the development of AI and its use is not inimical to democracy and human rights at country level. We have also realized that the development of new technologies is being undertaken without much regulation. I think it is so fast, as Doreen was saying, it is taking place in such a fast pace that we do not stop to think of how we can really provide guidelines and put in place protective mechanisms to make sure that AI functions properly. And so we have come up with a Charter of Ethics on Science and Technology, which is something that was developed in the course of a two-year period by our specialized body, the Advisory Group on Science and Technology, and we want to roll this out and, Doreen, I think that it is something that together we can see how ITU and IPU can work to make sure that technology is developed according to certain ethical guidelines, because there are a lot of dilemmas that are emerging as we work with new technologies. And then we also had recently, I think it was in Norway, where we had the parliamentary track at the Internet Governance Forum, and that one was focusing on misinformation and disinformation, which is something that we have all recognized as a major risk and threat to humanity as a whole. So we want to continue this conversation, and as I said, we want to do it in partnership with other stakeholders. The three of us are here because parliaments are just one piece of the puzzle. You have the governments, you have civil society, the scientific community. There is a case to be made for a rapprochement between policymakers and the scientific community. We don’t see much evidence of that happening at this particular stage and that is one of the goals of the IPU, making sure that parliamentarians reach out to the scientific community to ensure that these conversations are evidence-based because I believe that science and technology do not lie except they are manipulated by some malevolent spirit. So I look forward to the conversations that will be taking place today and we would like to carry some of the information that we get from this meeting to the summit of speakers of parliaments which will be taking place in this city at the end of the month. The Global Conference of Speakers of Parliament and there will actually be a special panel during that summit on the role of parliament in shaping our digital future. Thank you Doreen for accepting ITU to contribute to the deliberations of that panel and we will be going to Asia too in Kuala Lumpur later in the year in November where there will be a parliamentary conference on the role of parliament in shaping the future of responsible AI. So I think we have our work cut out for us, we just need to keep our collective feet to the fire and make sure that as we develop new technologies in this digital age we can do so in a responsible manner, we can do so in a coherent manner so that it is beneficial to all. And I want to lay emphasis on the need for inclusion because Doreen I think you mentioned that not every household is… has access to internet today and I think that is basically in this day and age has become a question of human rights and so we need to make sure that development of technology is inclusive and egalitarian. Thank you very much for your attention and I will give the floor back to Doreen, I think. Is that it, Gitanjali? Thank you.

Rodrigo Goni: Thank you. Thank you so much, Secretary General. Always wise words from you and thank you for that longstanding partnership with the ITU but also with the WSIS community, the WSIS forum and of course, as you just mentioned, the Internet Governance Forum. Thank you. So ladies and gentlemen, we have four amazing parliamentarians with us this morning. I think Neema is joining us shortly. She’s stuck in another session so we will welcome her shortly. But here with me on the podium, we have Madam Amira Saber who is a member of the People’s Assembly in Egypt. Welcome to you. We also have Mr. Rodrigo Goni who is from Uruguay.

Doreen Bogdan-Martin: He’s a member of the House of Representatives and joining us remotely, we have from Thailand, Senator Nophadol In na. So welcome to you. What we’re going to do is we’ll start with the first question. I’ll have you each answer and then I’ll turn to Martin who will pose the second question. So I’ll dive right into the first question. If we can start about our shared digital future. So asking you about our shared digital future, about digital policy in the context of your country. and if you can share what are you hopeful about and what keeps you up at night. So, I look forward to hearing from you on this point and I think I’m going to start over to my right with Amira, over to you, please.

Amira Saber: Good morning. It’s a great pleasure to chair this very important panel with the ITU and the IPU and my dear colleagues from the different parliaments. I am, as you have presented, a member of parliament from Egypt and I am so much interested in all what’s related to digital policies. I introduced to the Egyptian parliament the first draft bill on AI governance and that was introduced by 60 other Egyptian MPs. Talking about hope, actually in Egypt we have been able last year to bring 12 million people online. That gives me hope. We have infrastructure that is extending to rural places and places which didn’t have connectivity before. There is nationwide digital hack which has been able to invade the digital infrastructure all across Egypt to a great extent. So, now we have roughly 82% of our people online and a few weeks ago we switched on nationwide 5G at the foot of the pyramids, a powerful symbol of 7,000 years of multiplication and stability into the future. We are a very youthful nation, so youth is a big source of hope. The same it needs capacitating, the same it needs very powerful programs that would get them the digital skills, that would get them into the employability world much more empowered. What keeps me up at night, from a political perspective also, is how can we as parliamentarians to say whatever we want without being banned. We have seen how digitalization and connectivity is a double-edged weapon now. Everyone in the world is following wars, is following conflicts, but not everyone in the world is able to express their views freely. I am speaking about the Palestine-Israeli war and how Meme, as myself, was banned from expressing my opinion online when it comes to supporting Palestine. So, digital and connectivity also bring to this space important questions about human rights and freedom of expression and how can we guarantee that this place is an open area where expression is guaranteed in a sense. AI jumping to the playground also is questionable. Is it increasing the digital divide? How can we really use AI and use its tools to bring people from the global south to cross this gap? To bring them to better healthcare services, to better educational opportunities? How can we use all the tools which we have towards better connectivity for everyone? This also keeps me up at night because we are running so, so fast that questions on regulate or not is very valid, on what to regulate and how to regulate it, on empowering multilateralism, because I think we are at a very challenging moment where the whole multilateral system is being challenged. So, we have tracks on development where we could prove that this multilateralism is able to bring millions of people who are underprivileged and millions of people who are suffering shortages of services through connectivity and through digitalization under the spotlight, living a better life. having better accessibility to services and finding a future with better jobs and a sense of hope. This all keeps me alert at night and I think that the RPU and the ITU can help us magnificently. For Egypt, I think there is a Power to Connect initiative and this could elevate the amount and the number of the pilots that has been already on ground. We can increase and capitalize on these pilot projects which prove to be very efficient when it comes to connectivity. Egypt through Swiss area has Texas of the world connectivity cables running through which so we also need to capacitate on that to increase the technical skills of every worker who is working on that file and also to capacitate parliamentarians. I always say that we can’t regulate what we don’t understand so there is a huge role for the RPU to get as more of parliamentarians to be capacitated on the digital skills and how to govern for the best interest of the people because I think that a legislator is someone who could connect all the dots on the floor, who could scrutinize the work of the government, who could voice to the global space what do they have and they connect directly to the people on ground so they speak on behalf of the people to everyone else so whatever is good they can actually translate it on ground and whatever needs fixation they should talk about it so they need real capacitating. Also experiences from different countries has been extremely important because what work is for the US for example doesn’t necessarily work for Egypt so bringing together the countries with the same setup the same potential to learn from each other to exchange experiences is extremely important for parliamentarians and I think for technical people. get the money, channel them into development projects as reasonable interests. So I think that as there is a climate swap for that, there should be a swap for digitalization. There should be a swap of debts for the sake of the Global South and the nations, that digitization and digital skills are not just a vertical opportunity. No, it’s a horizontal one because it cross-cuts every sector. Health, education, sanitization, employability. I imagine a woman at a very rural village in Egypt, if she has the proper digital skills, what a massive impact she has on her life and the life of her family. She could start a business, she could sell online. Everything regarding her life could be changed just if she’s properly capacitated. I tabbed on some of the ideas which you have in mind and I look forward to it.

Doreen Bogdan-Martin: Thank you, thank you so much for that, Neema, thank you. And Martin, perhaps offline you and I can take up the skilling and the capacity building for parliamentarians, because we just launched this AI Skills Coalition, I think that could be a great opportunity for parliamentarians. Thank you for sharing that. I’m going to turn to Rodrigo. If you have reflections on what we just heard or share with us your own.

Rodrigo Goni: Thank you, Doreen. I believe that those of us here in the room very clearly understand the mammoth task and the great land of opportunities that are presented to all of us. This is no longer a question of the digital world or the new technologies or the technical issues. It’s no longer just a mere technical issue. This is now a political issue. Why? Because in that immense dimension of health, education, and well-being of our peoples and the possibilities that this technology brings, they’re not going to come by themselves out of a spontaneous generation. Policymakers, parliamentarians do not, and I repeat this, we do not have the right to play dumb or naive or be optimistically naive because we represent citizens. Some other people could say, these opportunities from technologies are going to come out of a spontaneous generation. We don’t have the right to tackle this this way because the possibilities that we see here that are becoming tangible in the real world go hand in hand with showing the other side of the coin. I was told that in the WSIS forum were asked if we are pessimists or optimists, and maybe we should all be optimists, but there was a survey they say that pessimists are there. That’s not being a pessimist per se, it is being responsible as a parliamentarian, as a lawmaker. For those possibilities to be inclusive, we need to understand that there are threats, even existential threats, threats to the paradigms and democratic threats. This new technology era, this AI, etc., presents a threat to democracy in many places. So we cannot afford the luxury of being naive or play the game of I didn’t know, beyond what Amira has shared with us. Some lawmakers in many parliaments that are involved, but that’s not enough. All parliaments, whether left, right, center, youth, veterans like myself with gray hair on my head, need to get involved. For those possibilities that come hand in hand with technology and under the inclusivity and democratic principles, come to our citizens, are our responsibility. We are a necessary evil, that’s what I say about parliaments, at least if we want to live under democracy. And those threats that are right there, that are visible, are now emerging. We already see that. violations to human rights, or violating the human and the children of rights, or affecting national voting campaigns. Those threats are there. Now, I believe that the key is the following. Parliaments cannot stand still and do nothing, because then anything could happen in our countries. But Martin, and Doreen, and Amira, and all of you, we cannot do what we used to do the same way. If the world changed exponentially, and it’s going to change even more, we parliamentarians, lawmakers cannot do our job the same way we were doing it years ago. There is an artificial intelligence that seems to be ruling everything we do. We have the noble principle of having AI serving us. We need a new intelligence, political intelligence, political premise of thought. And what is that new, we cannot be reactive? Parliaments were always reactive. We looked at what was happening, and then we came up with a law. Now, it’s the other way around, because we cannot follow the speed of this digital era. A parliament that wants to tackle these issues reactively is useless. Maybe we can delay a little bit these advances. We need to build them. The key is not in waiting for the new technologies to and even this issue we need to work together not only among all parties but we need to work with other stakeholders. Doreen was asking us how can the IUP help us by teaching us what we don’t know and we cannot if a parliamentarian goes too technology wise don’t trust that parliamentarian because we don’t know it’s not how we were trained but we parliamentarians need to start acting like Wises did or other buddies of the UN acted collaborating among themselves anticipating what comes and I’m coming to an end maybe you’re telling me but is that possible in the as a politician I don’t know if it’s possible or not but it is something we need to do and it is something that is paramount and we’ve seen in LATAM, we’ve seen it in Uruguay, we’ve seen it in Chile that we have commissions thinking of the future that focus on those challenges when you have so big challenges the only way to tackle that is to change your paradigms. and to come up with a new intelligence, a human political intelligence. If you don’t bring that political entity, if you don’t bring that human-centric entity to this new intelligence, we will not be able to make it. And of course, I know that many parliamentarians do not want to go in this direction because many things are at their stake. But if we don’t do it, we are putting at stake the basic human rights and democracy itself. And there is an existential risk, like the experts say. So we need to act now. We need to develop a new political intelligence, quote unquote, at least to deal with this new digital challenges. If we don’t do it now, tomorrow could be too late. Thank you.

Doreen Bogdan-Martin: Thank you. Thank you. Excellent points. And I look forward to hearing, Neema, perhaps your reflections on what you just heard. Thank you for joining us. We were asking our friends on the panel about shaping our digital future together. What keeps you up at night? What gives you hope and optimism, as you’ve heard? We’re going back and forth between being optimistic, pessimistic. Tell us your thoughts. What keeps you hopeful? What worries you? Over to you.

Neema Lugangira: Thank you very much, Madam Doreen. Good morning, everyone. First of all, I just want to quickly share what’s just happened this morning. It’s already a true example of how we as parliamentarians are wired and driven. I’ve literally just arrived. My flight was delayed. My daughter graduated yesterday in Edinburgh. And being a mother, trying to juggle motherhood and professionalism, I ditched her so fast and I said, IPU and WSIS needs me. So here I am. So I apologize for being a little bit late. Now, first of all, to me, I am truly, truly honored and humbled about this meeting today, because I remember back in 2022, when I met Gitanjali Wissis, a lot of the Wissis activities were going on in exclusion of parliamentarians. Parliamentarians were never part of the picture in terms of being strategically and concretely being part and parcel of this discussion, especially on how to accelerate the implementation of the Wissis action lines. So in 2022, we organized the first Wissis parliamentary engagement, and I’m really happy to see that it’s grown. And here we are today doing Wissis with the IP, which is something really good, and we’ve made great progress. Now, very quickly, I think I just want to share a few points about what are my concerns. First of all, us as parliamentarians, we have a pivotal role in setting the legal and ethical framework. When we’re talking about the use of new technologies, in particular AI, we have to recognize that parliamentarians have that role. But then, secondly, we have the opportunity of bridging the global digital divide. And here I would like to call on more capacity building, not only for the users, but also us as legislators, government officials. But at the same time, I would also like to emphasize the importance of making sure that we have enough funding and support for strengthening digital literacy, especially in remote areas, peripheral regions, border regions. We need to emphasize that fact. And then lastly, when we’re talking about artificial intelligence, we cannot avoid looking at the whole AI global discourse. We know there’s a huge global imbalance here. And AI accountability. Parliamentary has to Thank you very quickly. The next steps is to, one, you know, the implementation of this IPU-AI resolution, but two, is to continue working with parliamentarians. Three, we have to address the issue of the manipulation and the way in which AI accelerates online gender-based violence, particularly to women in public office and women politicians, which then silences us and it diminishes all our efforts towards increasing gender-balanced democracy. And then finally, I would also like just to share that the women political leaders in partnership with Smart Africa, GIZ, and the IPU are working towards capacitating women political leaders to be FEM AI champions through an initiative that’s focusing on Africa and the global FEM

Martin Chungong: AI labs. So, such collaboration, such partnerships can take us to where we want. And to conclude, and Ms. Sia. I’d like to start with the first question. As a woman, I myself previously, was very worried about AI and I didn’t and as a politician, it’s very difficult to comprehend how can you use it. But through this FEM AI, FEM AI lab initiative with the women political leaders, we as parliamentarians in particular in Tanzania have come to see the power of artificial intelligence because unlike our predecessors, I was shocked, he had about five assistants. He had an assistant for tax issues, an assistant for legal issues, an assistant for policy issues whereas we, most African parliamentarians, have ourselves. We are the main and we are the assistants of everything. So with AI, it can save us a lot of time if we want to analyze reports, if we want to analyze policies, if we want to frame our work, but for us to understand that in a way that we need capacity building and we need access to these tools. These tools are expensive. How can we get access to these tools to be able to appreciate and use them? Thank you.

Nophadol In na: Ladies and gentlemen, I am Nopphadol In na, a senator from Thailand and vice-chairperson of the Working Group on Science and Technology of IPU. Ladies and gentlemen, the parliaments are no longer just observers of the digital age. We are key actors in shaping it, whether through passing legislation, setting ethical standards or enabling innovation. Our role is critical and encouraged by collective commitment shown here to ensure that digital transformation is not only effective but also inclusive, transparent and guided by human values. The shared sense of purpose is what I will carry forward. So in response to your question, one thing that gives me hope in the rapid growth of Thailand’s digital economy and the strong push from our government under the Thailand 4.0 vision, we are seeing real transparent formation on the ground. National broadband expansion, digital ID system and the rise of e-government services are redefining how Thai citizens interact with the state. People are now paying with the prompt pay, registering business online and accessing public service via apps. The Prachachat Internet project, which brings free Wi-Fi to rural villages, is helping to close the urban-rural gaps. The momentum is visible and Thai society is increasingly ready to advance digital transformation. And in the Thai Senate at the moment, most of the senators are using digital technology, such as AI, to help and assist our work. That gives me great optimism. But what keeps me awake at night is the growing digital divide between urban centres like Bangkok, our capital city, and our rural provinces. While 5G speeds power the capital, many remote communities still struggle with basic internet access or no access at all. This inequality risks deepening social and economic disparity. At the same time, cyber security threats are rising. Online scams, phishing, fake news, and even cyber attacks on government platforms have grown more sophisticated. Many of our citizens, especially the elderly, are vulnerable. Ensuring data privacy under Thailand’s new Personal Data Protection Act, while also supporting innovation, is another tick-tock. We must work. So I’m hopeful because we are moving forward, but cautious because we must ensure no one is left behind in this journey. Thank you.

Doreen Bogdan-Martin: Thank you. Thank you so much. I’m hearing some cautious optimism there, so I appreciate those comments. And as you said in the beginning, parliamentarians are not observing shaping the digital future. They actually have to be critical and key players to help actually shape it. So I’m going to hand over to you, Secretary General Martin, to take us through the next round of questions. Over to you, please.

Martin Chungong: Thank you. Thank you very much, Doreen. It’s been wonderful, refreshing listening to the distinguished parliamentarians on this panel today. And we are edified, I think, on the expectations of parliamentarians. They are not illiterate when it comes to the digital age. I think we’ve heard them very clearly. But one thing that I see that has run through their interventions like a red thread is the issue of inclusivity, is the issue of the digital gap or the digital divide that we are witnessing today. And I do understand that they’re very anxious to address this particular challenge. So I would like for you, in this room, we have people from different areas of work and, you know, that can be very helpful to you, parliamentarians. So I just want to ask each of you very quickly, because we’re running out of time, and maybe, Neema, we will start with you. Just tell us briefly what you think we should be doing, ITU, IPU, and the audience that is here today, to help you deliver on the expectations of your people. Because at the end of the day, you want, as representatives of the people, to be able to meet the expectations when it comes to access to digital technologies on an ongoing basis. Can you?

Neema Lugangira: Thank you very much. You put me on the spot, Secretary General, but I’ll try. My big ask, I think, most of the tech companies, especially the multinational tech companies, are from the global north. And, you know, I can say all of them, their annual turnover in terms of their sales at times is more than our national GDPs. So one of the things that I think ITU, IPU can easily do to support is to find a mechanism of bringing the senior decision makers from these tech companies meeting with parliamentarians. Because we are then able to tell the tech companies directly the issues that we are grappling with when we’re using their technology. Because if we try to do it on our own, we’re too small for them to listen. But if it’s the ITU and the IPU, it changes the narrative. And why do I say this? Number one, there are challenges of language barrier, even with the AI. Number two, and this I’m speaking from experience, when you experience abuse, online abuse, and you report it on the online platforms, if, for example, it’s in Kiswahili, it depends on the tool or the AI on the other side, how it’s translating what was said. So in their context, it seems like it’s not a violation. But in my context, it is an utter violation. So there are those dynamics that need to be discussed. Number three, small issues of verification. When you’re a public leader, you’re more prone for your identity to be used and to have fake narratives or fake tweets or fake things like that made on you. But there is no way to depict that this is not you. Because the entire process of doing the verifications It’s almost impossible. And even when they say if you are a public official, you can get waivers, you can get this, if you are coming from the global south, it doesn’t really work like that. And then lastly is the access of the tools. These companies make a lot of money. Surely they should have some sort of CSR, or in partnership with the IPU and the ITU, they can come up with a mechanism. And this is something also the Women Political Leaders is trying to push on, on seeing how can parliamentarians, at least say from the least developed countries, you know, the least medium income countries, get access to these tools. Because we are only going to be able to regulate what we know. But if we remain not knowing it, we’re going to have stringent regulations, which then are not going to be helpful for the growth of the digital sector. Thank you.

Martin Chungong: Thank you very much, Neema. I did not actually put you on the spot because you responded brilliantly. Thank you. Let me turn to Amira. You were very expansive on your hopes and your fears as a parliamentarian. Tell us now, what do you think we can do to support you?

Amira Saber: Yes, first, I consider that every fibre cable relay is a vote for equity. So, what I expect the ITU to do is put the rural connectivity at the centre of every programme they have. For Egypt, I mentioned the Partner to Connect. I wish that the bridges for this programme could actually intensify and we can capitalise on that and to extend that to Africa. I think that Africa has huge, huge potential for its youth, for the future, for bringing them to employability properly. So, more of that. and Mr. Mohamad Al-Mahdi. I think also that giving regulators and engineer world class skills is very much crucial. Same goes for parliamentarians as well. I hope that there would be a policy radar, a policy radar that maps everything related globally to connectivity, digitalization, digitization and AI. Everything related to that could have a kind of a radar where every parliamentarian could access it, learn from it and is encouraged to share their experiences on that. I think also that we should think about how to make the cyber space safer and more inclusive, especially for the vulnerable groups, for women. I can tell you about women who lose their lives to deepfakes, to the potential consequences of AI on the negative note. These are important issues which we should actually talk about, how we can make sure that deepfakes are easily identified and how can we help the one who does this accountable. For this, I also think there should be an exchange of knowledge about the classification of data, because according to the sensitivity of data, there should be a kind of legal liability. I think also, AgriTech is something extremely important. We all suffer from food safety issue and this relates to everything else, so using the advanced technologies and using AI for Agritech, and building the capacities of farmers, through even the link of parliamentarians, this would be an extremely important work. Again, every investment of a fibre cable is a vote to equity, which I hope ITU and IPU will help us to achieve on ground.

Martin Chungong: Thank you, thank you very much. That point you made about online safety is a very crucial one, because we have evidence that women parliamentarians are particular targets of online violence. Then what about the ordinary people? So I think you have a strong point. Can we go over to Bangkok before we come back to Rodrigo? Nophadol, are you still online? Yes, yes. How can we help you?

Nophadol In na: Thank you very much, Secretary General Martin. Actually, under the Working Group on Science and Technology of IPU, they have done a lot of good job. For example, they have trained the staff member of the parliamentary in Jordan and the parliamentarian in Vietnam. So the programme is still going on. So in this case, I would like to add to your question, is that nowadays technology must serve people, not replace them. As we enter the age of AI and global… and Ms. Yvonne M. Nguyen. We are a group of international partners that share our values and connectivities. Our digital progress must be guided by human values and share responsibility. The IPU and ITU play a key role in this journey. Helping us navigate complexities, build capacities to create inclusive, secure and future-ready digital policy. This is what I would like to add in my final words. Thank you very much.

Martin Chungong: Thank you. I think this is in line with the push to address the ethical dilemmas of technological innovation. Thank you. Let me turn to Rodrigo.

Rodrigo Goni: I believe that we are all aware of the fact that the best way forward is cooperation. Not just as an opportunity, but as a need. ITU and IPU have already done a lot of cooperation in the past. It has proven that it works. For us, politicians, it is difficult for us to cooperate because we are rather used to confrontation. But as Neema said, it is absolutely impossible to approach all the safety and protection issues without having all stakeholders on the table. Big tech companies, big organizations. I believe time has come because we need it, not just because we love it, but rather because we need it. and Mr. David Ramos. The IPU has been working, as the Thai Senator said, on this process of integrating technologies and new digitalization into the parliaments. We are working on that and I think it is time, time has come to launch a new paradigm so that parliamentarians will learn that we need to understand that for these digital challenges the paradigm of cooperation and anticipation is good, is needed, it is helpful for all of us and we will be at the service of our citizens. The citizens will give us a round of applause if we cooperate and we achieve these goals that are in principle very difficult to achieve but that we will be able to do it. But the WSIS plus 20 can really be taking the relay from these successful processes to launch a new model of a new political intelligence, new political intelligence with a new paradigm, a paradigm shift that we anticipate, that we cooperate, that we experiment globally but that can be replicated at national level, at the national parliaments. Because national parliaments are not silly, we know that if something is working, is demanded by the people, we will replicate it in our national parliaments and ITU and IPU have a key role to lead these processes that maybe parliamentarians can replicate later. Thank you.

Martin Chungong: Thank you very much, Rodrigo, I know that you are very tuned into the role of parliaments as anticipating the future and making sure that we are… I believe we are out of time. Where is Gitangi? We take our cue from you. Where is she? We need to conclude at this stage? Yes? Yes? Okay. Here we need to wrap up and Doreen, I would like to take one question from the floor because Neema mentioned something that was important, the need for outreach to the private sector, to the high-tech companies to make sure that they are in sync with Parliament’s expectations in terms of accessibility. Do we have any representatives from the private sector here, the corporate sector, who might want to respond to this challenge? No? I don’t see it so that in the room. No, but the message is clear. I think the records of this meeting will make that point abundantly clear, just as the other points that were made here. But before I hand over the floor to Doreen to conclude this session, I think that we come out of these deliberations quite edified, but we are not talking to, as I said, people who are digitally illiterate. Parliamentarians are fairly aware. They need to understand better because it’s a very, I would say, detailed, complex world we are dealing with and I am reminded of what you said. You cannot make policy on something that you do not understand. Amira, I think it’s important that we continue to build knowledge among parliamentarians of the development of new technologies and the implications thereon for the lives of the people. I still go back Thank you very much, Mr. Martin Chungong, Ms. Amira Saber, Mr. Khusela Diko, Ms. Amira Saber, Mr. Kenneth Pugh, Ms. Amira Saber, Mr. Rodrigo Goñi, Ms. Amira Saber, Mr. Kenneth Pugh, Ms. Amira Saber, Mr. Kenneth Pugh, Ms. Amira Saber, Mr. Kenneth Pugh, Ms. Amira Saber, Mr. Kenneth Pugh, Mr. Kenneth Pugh, Mr. Kenneth Pugh, and Mr. Martin.

Doreen Bogdan-Martin: Secretary General. We can’t stop here. We got to keep going. It’s wonderful that you have your summit approaching in two weeks, I guess, so we can continue the conversation there. But what I also think is great is that we wrap up the WSIS Forum today. Throughout the week, we have had gatherings of different stakeholders in WSIS communities. We’ve had the regulators, we’ve had the ministers, we’ve had the civil society, the technical community, academia, UN partners, and last but not least, a critical piece of the equation, which is our parliamentarians. And I think that, I don’t know that we planned it on purpose that way, but I think it’s a great way to wrap things up. Because as our friend from Thailand said, you can’t be observing, you actually have to be part of this process in shaping the digital future. I would say from an IT perspective, we hear you and your concerns. We know we have to close that digital divide. We have to tackle cybersecurity issues. We have to tackle digital literacy issues. We have to tackle even affordability issues, that online harm and harassment that we’ve talked about for years. We got to get to that. So we hear you on that front. Also, the opportunities to engage with tech companies. I think we can be facilitators of bringing those constituent groups together. And of course, the need for us together as IPU and ITU, we’re neighbors, so we can certainly do this, Martin. I think we can help to advance collaboration, advance partnerships, and also to address the specific needs that you have when it comes to capacity building for parliamentarians. And I think that’s something we’d be quite happy to take forward. As we look to the WSIS plus 20, I think coming to the future as you so eloquently shared together, will find ways to make sure that we future-proof this process and make sure that we take into account the needs of your various constituents. So thank you again for those wonderful comments, and Martin, more to come from you and me. Thank you.

Agreement points

Parliamentarians need significant capacity building and digital skills development to effectively regulate and govern digital technologies

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Neema Lugangira
– Martin Chungong
– Doreen Bogdan-Martin

Arguments

Parliamentarians cannot regulate what they don’t understand, requiring significant capacity building in digital skills

AI can serve as a valuable tool for parliamentarians to analyze reports and policies, but requires access and training

Need for collaboration between policymakers and the scientific community to ensure evidence-based conversations

ITU’s AI Skills Coalition could provide opportunities for parliamentary capacity building

Summary

All speakers agree that parliamentarians require substantial training and capacity building in digital technologies to create effective legislation and governance frameworks. They emphasize that understanding technology is prerequisite to regulating it effectively.

Topics

Capacity development | Legal and regulatory | Development

Digital divide and inclusion challenges require urgent attention, particularly for rural and underserved populations

Speakers

– Doreen Bogdan-Martin
– Martin Chungong
– Amira Saber
– Nophadol In na
– Neema Lugangira

Arguments

One-third of humanity still lacks internet access, with many more lacking skills and resources to benefit from digital technologies

Technology development must be inclusive and egalitarian, addressing access as a human rights issue

Need for nationwide digital infrastructure expansion to bring connectivity to rural and underserved areas

Digital divide exists between urban centers and rural provinces, risking deepened social and economic disparities

Importance of strengthening digital literacy, especially in remote and peripheral regions

Summary

There is unanimous agreement that the digital divide represents a critical challenge requiring coordinated action. Speakers emphasize that digital access should be viewed as a human rights issue and that special attention must be paid to rural and marginalized communities.

Topics

Digital access | Human rights principles | Development

Parliamentarians must play an active, not passive, role in shaping digital governance and policy

Speakers

– Doreen Bogdan-Martin
– Martin Chungong
– Rodrigo Goni
– Neema Lugangira
– Nophadol In na

Arguments

Parliamentarians are uniquely positioned to ensure digital technologies serve the public good and reflect values of transparency, inclusivity, accountability and human rights

IPU has adopted resolutions on AI’s impact on democracy and human rights, providing a roadmap for national-level parliamentary action

Parliamentarians must shift from reactive to proactive approaches, developing new political intelligence to anticipate digital challenges rather than responding after the fact

Parliamentarians have a crucial role in setting legal and ethical frameworks for new technologies, particularly AI

Parliamentarians need to be key actors in shaping the digital age through legislation, ethical standards, and enabling innovation

Summary

All speakers agree that parliamentarians cannot be mere observers but must actively shape digital policy through legislation, ethical standards, and proactive governance approaches. They emphasize the unique democratic mandate of parliamentarians in this process.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Development

Online safety concerns, particularly regarding women and vulnerable groups, require immediate attention

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Neema Lugangira
– Martin Chungong

Arguments

Need for mechanisms to identify and hold accountable those creating deepfakes and other harmful content

Importance of making cyberspace safer and more inclusive for vulnerable groups

AI accelerates online gender-based violence, particularly against women in public office, silencing democratic participation

Importance of addressing misinformation and disinformation as major threats to humanity

Summary

Speakers share deep concern about online safety issues, with particular emphasis on protecting women and vulnerable groups from digital harms including deepfakes, online violence, and misinformation that threatens democratic participation.

Topics

Gender rights online | Human rights principles | Content policy | Cybersecurity

Multi-stakeholder cooperation is essential for addressing digital challenges effectively

Speakers

– Doreen Bogdan-Martin
– Martin Chungong
– Rodrigo Goni
– Neema Lugangira

Arguments

WSIS provides a trusted platform for multi-stakeholder collaboration over 20 years

Need for collaboration between policymakers and the scientific community to ensure evidence-based conversations

Cooperation is necessary rather than optional for addressing digital safety and protection issues

Importance of bringing together tech companies and parliamentarians to address implementation challenges

Summary

All speakers emphasize that digital governance challenges are too complex for any single stakeholder to address alone. They advocate for structured cooperation between governments, tech companies, civil society, and international organizations.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | International cooperation

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers see AI as having transformative potential for empowerment, particularly for women, while acknowledging the need for proper access and training to realize these benefits.

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Neema Lugangira

Arguments

AI and digital tools can transform lives, enabling rural women to start businesses and access new opportunities

AI can serve as a valuable tool for parliamentarians to analyze reports and policies, but requires access and training

Topics

Future of work | Gender rights online | Capacity development

Both emphasize the need for fundamental paradigm shifts in how parliamentarians approach technology governance, moving from reactive to proactive approaches while maintaining human-centered values.

Speakers

– Rodrigo Goni
– Nophadol In na

Arguments

Parliamentarians must shift from reactive to proactive approaches, developing new political intelligence to anticipate digital challenges rather than responding after the fact

Technology must serve people, not replace them, guided by human values and shared responsibility

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of establishing ethical frameworks and building comprehensive technical capacity across the governance ecosystem, not just for parliamentarians but for all stakeholders involved in technology regulation.

Speakers

– Martin Chungong
– Amira Saber

Arguments

Need for ethical guidelines in technology development, including IPU’s Charter of Ethics on Science and Technology

Importance of world-class skills development for regulators and engineers alongside parliamentarians

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

Need for direct engagement between parliamentarians and major technology companies

Speakers

– Neema Lugangira
– Rodrigo Goni
– Amira Saber

Arguments

Importance of bringing together tech companies and parliamentarians to address implementation challenges

Cooperation is necessary rather than optional for addressing digital safety and protection issues

Need for mechanisms to identify and hold accountable those creating deepfakes and other harmful content

Explanation

This consensus is unexpected because it represents parliamentarians from different regions (Africa, Latin America, Middle East) all independently identifying the need for direct dialogue with tech companies, suggesting this is a universal challenge rather than region-specific issue. The agreement spans practical implementation issues, accountability mechanisms, and cooperative governance approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | International cooperation | Content policy

Parliamentarians acknowledging their own limitations and need for fundamental paradigm shifts

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Rodrigo Goni
– Neema Lugangira

Arguments

Parliamentarians cannot regulate what they don’t understand, requiring significant capacity building in digital skills

Parliamentarians must shift from reactive to proactive approaches, developing new political intelligence to anticipate digital challenges rather than responding after the fact

AI can serve as a valuable tool for parliamentarians to analyze reports and policies, but requires access and training

Explanation

It’s unexpected for elected officials to so openly acknowledge their limitations and call for fundamental changes to how they operate. This level of self-reflection and willingness to admit knowledge gaps while calling for systemic change in parliamentary approaches demonstrates remarkable consensus on the inadequacy of traditional governance methods for digital challenges.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Capacity development | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate remarkable consensus across multiple critical areas: the urgent need for parliamentary capacity building in digital technologies, the imperative to address digital divides as human rights issues, the necessity of proactive rather than reactive governance approaches, the importance of protecting vulnerable groups online, and the essential nature of multi-stakeholder cooperation. There is also strong agreement on the transformative potential of AI and digital technologies when properly governed.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with significant implications for digital governance. The agreement spans technical, political, and social dimensions of digital policy, suggesting a mature understanding of the challenges and a shared vision for solutions. This consensus provides a strong foundation for coordinated international action on digital governance, particularly through the ITU-IPU partnership and WSIS framework. The willingness of parliamentarians to acknowledge their limitations and call for paradigm shifts indicates readiness for substantive reform in how digital technologies are governed globally.

Different viewpoints

Approach to technology regulation – reactive vs proactive governance

Speakers

– Rodrigo Goni
– Martin Chungong

Arguments

Parliamentarians must shift from reactive to proactive approaches, developing new political intelligence to anticipate digital challenges rather than responding after the fact

IPU has adopted resolutions on AI’s impact on democracy and human rights, providing a roadmap for national-level parliamentary action

Summary

Rodrigo argues that traditional reactive parliamentary approaches are ‘useless’ and parliamentarians must completely shift to anticipatory governance, while Martin presents the IPU’s existing reactive approach of creating resolutions after identifying problems as a viable roadmap for action.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Fundamental role of parliamentarians in digital governance

Speakers

– Rodrigo Goni
– Nophadol In na

Arguments

Parliamentarians must shift from reactive to proactive approaches, developing new political intelligence to anticipate digital challenges rather than responding after the fact

Parliamentarians need to be key actors in shaping the digital age through legislation, ethical standards, and enabling innovation

Explanation

While both agree parliamentarians should be active in digital governance, Rodrigo argues for a complete paradigm shift away from traditional parliamentary methods, calling reactive approaches ‘useless,’ while Nophadol advocates for parliamentarians to be ‘key actors’ using traditional tools like legislation and ethical standards. This disagreement is unexpected because both are parliamentarians but have fundamentally different views on whether existing parliamentary methods can be adapted or must be completely replaced.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkably high consensus on identifying digital challenges (digital divide, online safety, capacity building needs) but reveals subtle yet significant disagreements on implementation approaches and the fundamental role of parliamentary institutions in digital governance.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high strategic implications. While speakers largely agree on problems and goals, their different approaches to solutions could lead to conflicting policy directions. The most significant disagreement centers on whether traditional parliamentary methods should be reformed or completely replaced, which has fundamental implications for democratic governance in the digital age.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers see AI as having transformative potential for empowerment, particularly for women, while acknowledging the need for proper access and training to realize these benefits.

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Neema Lugangira

Arguments

AI and digital tools can transform lives, enabling rural women to start businesses and access new opportunities

AI can serve as a valuable tool for parliamentarians to analyze reports and policies, but requires access and training

Topics

Future of work | Gender rights online | Capacity development

Both emphasize the need for fundamental paradigm shifts in how parliamentarians approach technology governance, moving from reactive to proactive approaches while maintaining human-centered values.

Speakers

– Rodrigo Goni
– Nophadol In na

Arguments

Parliamentarians must shift from reactive to proactive approaches, developing new political intelligence to anticipate digital challenges rather than responding after the fact

Technology must serve people, not replace them, guided by human values and shared responsibility

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of establishing ethical frameworks and building comprehensive technical capacity across the governance ecosystem, not just for parliamentarians but for all stakeholders involved in technology regulation.

Speakers

– Martin Chungong
– Amira Saber

Arguments

Need for ethical guidelines in technology development, including IPU’s Charter of Ethics on Science and Technology

Importance of world-class skills development for regulators and engineers alongside parliamentarians

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Capacity development

Key takeaways

Parliamentarians must transition from reactive to proactive approaches in digital governance, developing new political intelligence to anticipate challenges rather than respond after they occur

Digital divide remains a critical challenge with one-third of humanity lacking internet access, particularly affecting rural areas and creating socio-economic disparities

Parliamentarians cannot effectively regulate technologies they don’t understand, making capacity building and digital literacy essential for lawmakers

Online safety concerns are escalating, including gender-based violence against women politicians, cybersecurity threats, and restrictions on freedom of expression

Technology must serve people rather than replace them, guided by human values, transparency, inclusivity, and accountability

International cooperation between organizations like ITU and IPU is essential, along with engagement between parliamentarians and tech companies

Digital technologies offer transformative opportunities for economic growth, education, healthcare, and civic engagement when properly implemented

AI governance requires ethical frameworks and human-centric approaches to ensure democratic values are preserved

Resolutions and action items

ITU and IPU to collaborate on capacity building programs for parliamentarians in digital skills and AI understanding

ITU’s AI Skills Coalition to be extended to include parliamentary capacity building opportunities

Creation of a policy radar system to map global connectivity, digitalization, and AI policies for parliamentary access and knowledge sharing

Facilitation of direct engagement between senior tech company decision-makers and parliamentarians through ITU-IPU partnerships

Continuation of discussions at the upcoming Global Conference of Speakers of Parliament with a special panel on parliament’s role in digital future

Parliamentary conference in Kuala Lumpur on responsible AI to be held in November

Expansion of Partner to Connect initiative and similar programs to increase rural connectivity pilots

Development of mechanisms to improve access to AI tools for parliamentarians from least developed countries

Implementation of IPU’s AI resolution on democracy and human rights at national parliamentary levels

Unresolved issues

How to effectively bridge the gap between rapid technological advancement and slower legislative processes

Mechanisms for ensuring tech companies are held accountable for platform violations and harmful content in different cultural and linguistic contexts

Funding models and debt swap arrangements for digitalization in Global South countries

Standardized approaches to data classification and legal liability frameworks across different jurisdictions

Solutions for identity verification and prevention of deepfakes targeting public officials

Balancing data privacy protection with innovation support requirements

Addressing language barriers and cultural context issues in AI content moderation

Ensuring equitable access to expensive AI tools for parliamentarians from developing countries

Suggested compromises

Corporate social responsibility programs from tech companies to provide subsidized access to AI tools for parliamentarians from least developed countries

Multi-stakeholder approach combining government, civil society, scientific community, and private sector rather than government-only regulation

Gradual implementation of digital infrastructure with focus on rural connectivity as foundation for broader digital inclusion

Evidence-based policymaking through closer collaboration between parliamentarians and scientific community rather than purely political approaches

Anticipatory governance models that can be tested globally but adapted and replicated at national parliamentary levels

Cooperative rather than confrontational approaches among parliamentarians when addressing digital challenges

We cannot be reactive? Parliaments were always reactive. We looked at what was happening, and then we came up with a law. Now, it’s the other way around, because we cannot follow the speed of this digital era. A parliament that wants to tackle these issues reactively is useless… We need to build them. The key is not in waiting for the new technologies to… We need a new intelligence, political intelligence, political premise of thought.

Speaker

Rodrigo Goni

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the traditional legislative paradigm by arguing that parliaments must shift from reactive to proactive governance. It introduces the concept of ‘political intelligence’ as a new framework for addressing digital challenges, which is a profound departure from conventional lawmaking approaches.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from identifying problems to reimagining the entire legislative process. It influenced subsequent speakers to think about anticipatory governance and sparked conversations about new paradigms of cooperation. The concept of ‘political intelligence’ became a recurring theme that other participants referenced.

I always say that we can’t regulate what we don’t understand so there is a huge role for the RPU to get as more of parliamentarians to be capacitated on the digital skills and how to govern for the best interest of the people

Speaker

Amira Saber

Reason

This comment crystallizes a fundamental challenge in digital governance – the knowledge gap between technological advancement and legislative understanding. It highlights the paradox that effective regulation requires deep comprehension of the subject matter.

Impact

This insight became a central theme that resonated throughout the discussion. Multiple speakers, including Neema and the moderators, referenced this concept. It directly influenced the conversation toward capacity building needs and shaped the recommendations for ITU-IPU collaboration on parliamentarian training.

Most of the tech companies, especially the multinational tech companies, are from the global north… their annual turnover in terms of their sales at times is more than our national GDPs. So one of the things that I think ITU, IPU can easily do to support is to find a mechanism of bringing the senior decision makers from these tech companies meeting with parliamentarians.

Speaker

Neema Lugangira

Reason

This comment exposes the power imbalance between global tech companies and developing nations’ governments, highlighting how economic disparities translate into policy influence gaps. It’s insightful because it connects economic inequality to democratic governance challenges in the digital age.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion toward practical solutions for bridging the gap between tech companies and parliamentarians. It influenced the moderators to specifically ask if any private sector representatives were present and shaped the final recommendations about ITU-IPU facilitating such engagements.

There is an artificial intelligence that seems to be ruling everything we do. We have the noble principle of having AI serving us. We need a new intelligence, political intelligence, political premise of thought… We need to develop a new political intelligence, quote unquote, at least to deal with this new digital challenges.

Speaker

Rodrigo Goni

Reason

This comment presents a philosophical challenge to the relationship between human governance and artificial intelligence, arguing for the development of enhanced human political intelligence as a counterbalance to AI dominance. It’s thought-provoking because it reframes the AI debate from technical to fundamentally political.

Impact

This comment deepened the philosophical dimension of the discussion, moving beyond practical concerns to existential questions about human agency in governance. It influenced the tone of subsequent discussions about the need for human-centered approaches to digital policy.

We are only going to be able to regulate what we know. But if we remain not knowing it, we’re going to have stringent regulations, which then are not going to be helpful for the growth of the digital sector.

Speaker

Neema Lugangira

Reason

This comment reveals the double-edged nature of the knowledge gap – ignorance leads not just to ineffective regulation, but potentially harmful over-regulation that stifles innovation. It’s insightful because it shows how the lack of understanding creates a policy trap.

Impact

This observation added nuance to the capacity building discussion by showing that the stakes involve both under-regulation and over-regulation. It influenced the conversation toward finding balanced approaches to digital governance and reinforced the urgency of parliamentarian education.

Technology must serve people, not replace them. As we enter the age of AI… Our digital progress must be guided by human values and share responsibility.

Speaker

Nophadol In na

Reason

This comment provides a clear philosophical anchor for digital governance, establishing human-centricity as the fundamental principle. It’s thought-provoking because it offers a simple but profound criterion for evaluating all digital policies.

Impact

This comment provided a unifying principle that other speakers could rally around. It helped establish common ground among participants and influenced the discussion toward human rights and ethical considerations in digital governance.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed the discussion from a typical policy dialogue into a deeper examination of governance paradigms in the digital age. Rodrigo Goni’s insights about the need for proactive rather than reactive governance and ‘political intelligence’ established a new framework that influenced how other participants conceptualized their roles. Amira Saber’s observation about regulating what we understand became a central organizing principle that shaped recommendations for capacity building. Neema Lugangira’s comments about power imbalances and the risks of uninformed regulation added crucial perspectives on global equity and policy effectiveness. Together, these comments elevated the conversation from identifying problems to reimagining the fundamental relationship between technology, governance, and democracy. They created a progression from recognizing challenges to proposing paradigm shifts, ultimately shaping a more sophisticated understanding of parliamentarians’ evolving role in digital governance.

How can we establish a mechanism for bringing senior decision makers from multinational tech companies to meet directly with parliamentarians?

Speaker

Neema Lugangira

Explanation

This is important because parliamentarians need direct dialogue with tech companies to address issues like language barriers in AI, online abuse reporting systems, identity verification challenges, and access to tools, but individual countries are too small for these companies to listen to without facilitation from organizations like ITU and IPU.

How can we develop a policy radar that maps everything related globally to connectivity, digitalization, digitization and AI for parliamentarians to access and share experiences?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This would provide parliamentarians with a comprehensive resource to learn from global policies and share their own experiences, which is crucial for informed decision-making in digital governance.

How can we make deepfakes easily identifiable and hold those who create them accountable?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This is critical for protecting vulnerable groups, especially women, who can lose their lives to deepfakes and other negative consequences of AI misuse.

How can we develop a classification system for data sensitivity with corresponding legal liability frameworks?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This would help establish appropriate legal frameworks based on the sensitivity of different types of data, which is essential for effective digital governance.

How can we establish a debt swap mechanism for digitalization similar to climate debt swaps for Global South nations?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This would help address the digital divide by providing financial mechanisms for developing countries to invest in digital infrastructure and skills development.

How can we develop new political intelligence and paradigms for parliamentarians to anticipate rather than react to technological changes?

Speaker

Rodrigo Goni

Explanation

Traditional reactive parliamentary approaches are inadequate for the speed of digital transformation, requiring new collaborative and anticipatory governance models.

How can we strengthen the rapprochement between policymakers and the scientific community to ensure evidence-based conversations?

Speaker

Martin Chungong

Explanation

There is insufficient evidence of meaningful collaboration between these groups, which is essential for informed policy-making in science and technology.

How can we address AI’s acceleration of online gender-based violence, particularly against women in public office and women politicians?

Speaker

Neema Lugangira

Explanation

This silences women and diminishes efforts toward gender-balanced democracy, requiring specific interventions to protect women political leaders.

How can we provide affordable access to AI tools for parliamentarians from least developed countries and lower-middle-income countries?

Speaker

Neema Lugangira

Explanation

Parliamentarians can only regulate what they understand, but expensive AI tools create barriers to knowledge and effective governance in developing countries.

How can we use AI and advanced technologies to improve AgriTech and build farmer capacities to address food safety issues?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

Food safety is a global challenge that could be addressed through technology, requiring capacity building for farmers and involvement of parliamentarians in implementation.

Summary

This discussion focused on the collaboration between Brazil and South Africa as leading Global South nations in shaping digital policy agendas through their consecutive G20 presidencies, with Brazil holding the presidency in 2024 and South Africa taking over in 2025. The session explored how these partnerships can drive progress in digital inclusion, infrastructure development, and equitable access to information and communication technologies.

Marcelo Martinez from Brazil reflected on their G20 presidency experience, describing it as both an opportunity and a contradiction – providing a platform to lead the world’s 20 largest economies while maintaining diplomatic balance to avoid imposing their vision on non-G20 countries. Brazil’s presidency was particularly challenging for a developing country, requiring extensive coordination involving over 50 people from 15 organizations and resulting in 11 different documents. Brazil introduced groundbreaking discussions on information integrity, which had never been addressed in G20 before, and helped mainstream the concept of meaningful connectivity beyond ITU circles.

Jim Paterson from South Africa outlined their presidency priorities, building on the foundation laid by previous developing country presidencies including Indonesia, India, and Brazil. South Africa focused on four key areas: digital inclusion through universal and meaningful connectivity, integrated governance systems for digital public infrastructure, support for SMEs and innovation ecosystems, and artificial intelligence governance with emphasis on equality and data access. They continued Brazil’s work on information integrity while addressing new challenges like deepfakes and generative AI.

Both representatives acknowledged the significant resource constraints developing countries face when organizing such complex international processes, but emphasized the domestic benefits including strengthened institutional capacity and enhanced bilateral relationships. The discussion highlighted the importance of continuity between developing country presidencies in advancing pro-development agendas within forums traditionally dominated by developed nations. The conversation concluded with recognition that this sequence of developing country G20 presidencies represents a unique opportunity to influence global digital governance frameworks.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **G20 Digital Governance Leadership by Global South Countries**: The discussion centered on how Brazil’s 2024 G20 presidency and South Africa’s 2025 presidency represent a unique opportunity for developing nations to shape global digital policy, particularly around digital inclusion, infrastructure development, and equitable ICT access.

– **Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and Meaningful Connectivity**: Both countries emphasized advancing digital public infrastructure as a tool for inclusion, with South Africa building on Brazil’s work to develop integrated governance systems and measure public value, while addressing the gap between basic connectivity and meaningful connectivity.

– **Information Integrity and AI Governance**: Brazil successfully introduced information integrity discussions to the G20 for the first time, addressing disinformation and misinformation concerns. Both countries also worked on AI governance frameworks, with BRICS producing what they claim is the first comprehensive AI governance document from the Global South.

– **Financing Challenges for Digital Development**: A significant discussion emerged around the persistent lack of adequate financing mechanisms for digital development initiatives, with participants noting that financing remains the “unfinished business” from the original WSIS process despite being a critical barrier to progress.

– **WSIS+20 Process and Multilateral Cooperation**: The speakers addressed the upcoming WSIS+20 review process, expressing both opportunities and concerns about strengthening multilateral governance mechanisms while noting pessimism within the G77 group about advancing beyond defending existing achievements.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how Brazil and South Africa, as leading Global South nations, can leverage their consecutive G20 presidencies to drive meaningful progress in global digital governance, share experiences and lessons learned, and identify opportunities for continued cooperation in advancing digital inclusion and equitable access to ICTs on the global stage.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, characterized by mutual respect and shared vision between the Brazilian and South African representatives. While there was evident pride in achievements and optimism about cooperation opportunities, the tone also reflected realistic acknowledgment of challenges, particularly around resource constraints, financing difficulties, and geopolitical complexities. The conversation remained diplomatic and professional, with speakers showing genuine interest in learning from each other’s experiences and building on shared priorities for future collaboration.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Moderator**: Role – Session moderator facilitating the discussion between Brazil and South Africa representatives

– **Marcelo Martinez**: Role – Brazilian diplomat; Area of expertise – International relations, G20 presidency coordination, digital governance, BRICS cooperation, WSIS processes

– **Jim Paterson**: Role – South African representative; Area of expertise – G20 presidency, digital inclusion, digital public infrastructure, artificial intelligence governance

– **Annette Esterhuizen**: Role – South African participant following the G20 process; Area of expertise – Digital policy, financing for digital development

– **Speaker**: Role – ITU G20 Sherpa (7th G20 participation); Area of expertise – International telecommunications, G20 coordination, digital infrastructure, AI governance

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members who asked questions and made comments during the session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Alison** (mentioned by Jim Paterson): Role – Knowledge partner who helped South Africa with G20 focus; Area of expertise – Digital inclusion, data governance, think tank work across Global South

– **Jackie** (mentioned by Alison): Role – Brazilian T20 member; Area of expertise – Think tank engagement, G20 processes

– **Isabel** (mentioned by Marcelo Martinez): Role – Works on sustainable development; Area of expertise – Development financing, 2030 agenda negotiations

# Brazil-South Africa G20 Digital Governance Collaboration: Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This discussion examined the collaboration between Brazil and South Africa as consecutive Global South G20 presidencies, focusing on their efforts to advance digital governance frameworks. The session brought together diplomatic representatives and policy experts to analyze how these developing nations used their leadership positions to promote digital inclusion, meaningful connectivity, and equitable access to information and communication technologies.

Brazil’s 2024 G20 presidency and South Africa’s 2025 presidency created opportunities to mainstream development-focused agendas in international discussions, though both countries faced significant resource constraints and diplomatic challenges in their leadership roles.

## Key Participants

**Marcelo Martinez** represented Brazil’s diplomatic perspective, providing insights into organizing a G20 presidency as a developing nation and Brazil’s role in introducing topics like information integrity to the G20 agenda.

**Jim Paterson** represented South Africa’s approach to building upon Brazil’s foundation, focusing on South Africa’s four priority areas and the strategic decision to continue Brazil’s initiatives.

**Annette Esterhuizen** highlighted persistent financing challenges in digital development, while the **ITU G20 Sherpa** provided context about developing country presidencies. Audience members including **Alison Gillwald** contributed insights about knowledge partnerships and regional approaches.

## Major Themes and Key Discussions

### G20 Leadership Challenges for Developing Countries

Martinez described Brazil’s presidency as requiring coordination of more than 50 people from more than 15 organizations, ultimately producing 11 separate documents. He characterized this as both “an opportunity and a contradiction” – providing a platform to influence major economies while requiring careful diplomatic balance.

Paterson acknowledged similar challenges for South Africa, noting how they benefited from Brazil’s willingness to share experiences through 13 coordination meetings. This experience-sharing between consecutive developing country presidencies proved crucial for maximizing effectiveness.

### Digital Inclusion and Meaningful Connectivity

Martinez revealed a significant finding about Brazil’s connectivity: while 90% of Brazil’s population appears connected according to traditional metrics, internal analysis showed only 20% possess meaningful connectivity. This disparity highlighted how global digital divide statistics may be misleading.

Brazil brought the concept of meaningful connectivity from ITU discussions in Geneva, where “not many people were discussing it,” to broader G20 recognition. South Africa built upon this foundation by making digital inclusion the central theme of their presidency, approaching it through universal and meaningful connectivity as the foundation for digital public infrastructure.

### Information Integrity and AI Governance

Brazil successfully introduced information integrity discussions to the G20, despite concerns about potential backlash. Martinez noted this contributed to the topic’s subsequent incorporation into the Global Digital Compact. South Africa continued this work with focus on emerging challenges like generative artificial intelligence and deepfakes.

Both countries worked to shift AI governance discussions from purely risk-focused approaches toward including development perspectives. Martinez highlighted that BRICS produced a seven-page AI governance document from a Global South perspective, emphasizing development benefits rather than focusing exclusively on risks.

### Digital Public Infrastructure and Public Value

Both countries recognized digital public infrastructure (DPI) as fundamental to digital inclusion goals. Brazil continued India’s work on DPI, treating it as a basic tool with horizontal dimensions benefiting multiple sectors.

South Africa focused on developing integrated governance systems for DPI and introducing public value measurement concepts. Paterson explained this approach ensures DPI design maximizes potential for public value creation, going beyond technical implementation to consider broader societal impact.

## Key Agreements and Differences

### Areas of Consensus

Both representatives agreed on the resource-intensive nature of G20 presidencies for developing countries and the value of experience sharing. They aligned on prioritizing digital inclusion and meaningful connectivity, recognizing traditional connectivity statistics as misleading.

Both supported shifting technology governance discussions to include development perspectives and emphasized the importance of building upon each other’s work rather than starting fresh initiatives.

### Tactical Differences

While all participants agreed on the critical importance of financing for digital development, they differed on approaches. Martinez focused on working within existing constraints and finding alternative mechanisms, while Esterhuizen advocated for putting financing more prominently on the WSIS+20 agenda.

Martinez expressed pessimism about current multilateral negotiations, particularly within the G77 plus China group, while Paterson maintained focus on building upon existing work and continuing momentum.

## Financing Challenges and Institutional Barriers

Esterhuizen characterized financing as the “big unfinished business” from the original World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process. Martinez explained how institutional barriers arise when digital agendas are placed within development frameworks, with financing discussions automatically redirected to Conferences on Financing for Development.

The G20’s mandate limitations prevent direct financing discussions, forcing alternative approaches such as UNESCO fund creation. Martinez mentioned launching a global initiative on information integrity and climate change at UNESCO as one such alternative mechanism.

## Knowledge Partnerships and Regional Approaches

Both countries emphasized working with knowledge partners. Martinez specifically mentioned collaboration with ITU, UNESCO, and OECD. South Africa’s approach emphasized African leadership and continental organization involvement, with Paterson acknowledging contributions from Research ICT Africa and University of Pretoria.

The discussion revealed how developing country presidencies transformed knowledge partnerships within G20 engagement groups, shifting toward meaningful Global South participation.

## WSIS+20 and Future Multilateral Processes

Both countries expressed mixed feelings about the upcoming WSIS+20 review process. Martinez noted limited energy within the G77 plus China group, with concerns that negotiations might focus on defending past achievements rather than advancing new agendas.

The challenge of converging Global Digital Compact and WSIS processes emerged as requiring strategic attention. Despite challenges, both countries committed to continued collaboration within the G77 framework.

## Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

### Data and Measurement Gaps

The discussion highlighted critical gaps in global data about meaningful connectivity rates. While Brazil’s analysis revealed disparities between basic and meaningful connectivity, participants acknowledged uncertainty about the true global extent of the digital divide.

### Financing Mechanisms

No clear pathway emerged for addressing the persistent lack of dedicated financing mechanisms for digital development, with structural and bureaucratic barriers requiring creative solutions within existing institutional frameworks.

### Sustaining Progress

Concerns emerged about maintaining development-focused agendas when G20 presidencies return to developed countries, given the ITU representative’s observation that this sequence of developing country presidencies was unique.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated both opportunities and challenges facing developing countries in global digital governance leadership. Brazil and South Africa’s consecutive presidencies created opportunities to mainstream development-focused digital agendas, with notable consensus on priorities including digital inclusion, meaningful connectivity, and development-focused technology governance.

Key achievements included introducing information integrity to G20 discussions, advancing meaningful connectivity concepts, and developing Global South perspectives on AI governance. However, persistent challenges remain around financing mechanisms, data gaps, and sustaining progress across different presidencies.

The conversation highlighted the importance of continued collaboration between developing countries in advancing equitable approaches to global digital governance, while acknowledging significant resource constraints and structural barriers that must be addressed to achieve these goals.

Moderator: Hello, everyone. I just want to start the session. I would just do a very brief introduction about our moment and then I’m going to have a debate between Brazil and South Africa. At two leader leading nations of the global south and members of G20, Brazil and South Africa play pivotal roles in shaping inclusive global digital policy agendas. So, in 2024, Brazil… shared the G20 and in 2025 South Africa is in charge of it. The partnership is especially significant in advancing digital inclusion, infrastructure development and equitable access to ICTs, objectives that resonate with both the G20 digital economy working group and with these action lines. This session explores how cooperation between Brazil and South Africa can drive tangible progress and while leveraging their positions in G20 to influence global digital governance. So I’m going to start inviting Brazil to talk a little bit about G20, the experience, challenges, and Marcel, please. Thank you.

Marcelo Martinez: Good morning, everybody. It’s a pleasure to be here. I was asked to provide some reflections on synergies and alignments between Brazil and South Africa regarding both our G20 presidencies and the WSIS process. I’m going to add a little bit on the bricks, which we just ended a week ago, not even a week ago, but that’s what I wanted to bring to this conversation, which I really hope is going to be a conversation. I think that we have in this room mostly Brazilians and South Africans, so it would be nice because anticipating what I’m going to say, we have a lot in common in terms of synergies, alignments, positions, but in bilateral terms, we could do a lot more than we do now. So going to what I’m going to present today, the way I planned it was to look back to our G20 presidency last year. and also to the experience that we had in the BRICS, and then in the very end to look forward to what we can see ahead for the WSIS process. Looking back and starting with the G20 in chronological terms I think that what unites us, and Jin be free to disagree with me in the future, but what I saw, first of all, I’m not here I think to, of course, list everything that Brazil did in its presidency. We all know what will happen then. Maybe I will do some of it since I’m a diplomat and I have to do some propaganda of my own country and what we did, but that’s not the main intent here, of course. What I wanted to share with you was maybe a little bit of a back office vision of what we did and why we did it and why it went the way it did. And I wanted to begin by saying that for us, the G20, as I believe is very similar for South Africa, was at the same time an opportunity and a contradiction. An opportunity because the chance to lead, of course, the 20 largest economies in the world is very significant, of course. And of course, if we mention also the BRICS, a very significant group of countries and of the so-called global South, in both cases, the first thing that you do is of course you put yourself out there, both for the good and for the bad, but it’s a bit of a window, of a shop window in which you have a chance, your own minute of celebrity and all the world is looking at you. And you have to show them what you do best, of course. But that puts us, especially diplomats, in a contradiction, because both Brazil and, I think, South Africa, we’re both staunch defenders of multilateralism. So we have, then, an opportunity to send messages to the 20 largest economies or to the BRICS But at the same time, we have to do it in a very careful way so that we make it clear that we’re not trying to convert our own vision in messages or trying to impose our vision to the rest of the world. Most of the countries are not at the table, at the G20 or at the BRICS. So this, as a Brazilian diplomat, this is a very hard balancing act. It’s not easy to produce relevant deliverables and, at the same time, be able to do it in a way that we share our vision, that we do not impose any positions or visions. This is not – imposing is not really a diplomatic tradition. So finally, in terms of the G20, I wanted to point out something that is very obvious, but it’s – since it happens in the back office, not many people see it. For a developing country to engage in such an exercise – of course, we all know it in this room, I believe – it is a very stressful exercise. It drives us to our own limits in terms of human resources, in terms of financial resources, too. And I was actually very surprised to see a very large South African delegation here since we have a DWG meeting next Monday. It’s going to last for three days, so it’s going to be huge. It’s a negotiation meeting, and it is really very hard to do all this with the teams that we know we have and the resources that we know we have. That being said, when we did our own presidency and we tried to share our experience with South Africa, we had a whole of government exercise. I can say that we involved more than 50 people, more than 15 organizations in Brazil to organize the work of the DEWG. We began work about a year before our presidency, and we held 13 coordination meetings in order to make sure that we would achieve our results. That was the basic Brazil team for the DEWG, but we also had extra meetings in terms of the core group of organizations that were responsible for the work streams and the development of the deliverables that we planned to. It was also an interesting experience from the point of view of what we produced in the end. Again, I’m not going over the list of products, but we had 11 different documents. One of them was a G20 product. We can see how difficult it is to negotiate and to achieve consensus in this group. We also had seven different events, workshops. We were the working group of all G20 in Brazil that had the largest number of deliverables in all. We are very proud of this result, and we know how much it took us. Of course, we had the help of the ITU, UNESCO, and the OECD. the job, which was precious. We wouldn’t be able to do it without them, but still a very hard exercise. It is also very challenging very often to work with international organizations and knowledge partners. As a rule, of course, we all have our agendas and we, of course, we try to couple our agendas in a way that it makes sense for both partners. It is a partnership, but it is also very hard in the beginning to make it clear what we want as a country to achieve is leading the G20 and, of course, marry these objectives with what international organizations have in their portfolio that could match these interests. So it is also challenging. In terms of what we had planned of priority areas, we had, of course, you know what we worked with, but I think that the most challenging experience was the one with the integrity of information because it had never been discussed before in the G20 and it is a very diverse group, of course. The political window then, we saw it as a possibility to have this, but we were afraid that even in terms of the mandate of the group, whether countries would accept that we had this discussion in the DEWG, it ended up working well and I think that our work in the G20 in the end was an important ingredient to have this global discussion because we had the OECD already pushing this agenda as did the Secretariat for Global Communications of the United Nations pushing also this agenda with Melissa Fleming. Our work at the G20, I think, was important to make sure that this agenda actually made the GDC in the end, and of course that we still have this discussion at this very event. We had several sessions touching on disinformation, misinformation, trust in the digital ecosystem, and integrity of information online. So we’re very proud of this work. In terms of meaningful connectivity, I’d also like to add how it was, in our view, important that we also bring this discussion, which was in a way limited to the ITU, limited to Geneva. It wasn’t a lot when we started talking about it. Our guys in New York asked us, what is this? What are you talking about? We don’t know what this is. And we were also very proud to, in a way, make sure that the ITU work in this area could be broadly known and recognized. And it also made the GDC, and now it’s mainstream, finally, as it should be. So I think that our G20, I like to believe that we give a contribution also in this way. Of course, we also continue the Indian work in terms of DPIs, which we find is really a very basic tool for digital inclusion, which was our horizontal dimension that we explored in our declaration in Maceo. And of course, AI, which when we began this work, I remember that we went to the AI summit in Bletchley Park. It was October, perhaps, 2023. And what we had there was basically a conversation on risks, and there was also, of course, the conversation on risks. ethics. But that was not the perspective of development as part of the global conversation then. And that’s why we decided we would have this conversation in the DWG to make sure that this narrative in terms of the distribution of benefits of the technological evolution could be also in the agenda. And I also believe that this is now mainstream and we see it in the IFEGOOD. It was already there but not many people were maybe discussing it in diplomatic form. But now we see it very strong everywhere. Of course we have a continuity again with the South African presidency in terms of our own priority areas. And this is I think very important. Every time that we planned in every meeting that we planned our presidency we were concerned and worried about what can we leave behind in terms of this succession of developing countries in the G20 presidency. And it’s nice that we could in a way continue the work from Indonesia, from India, and now that we see that South Africa also has given continuity so that we could leave a mark there. Looking at the BRICS now, I think that it is in many ways an easier exercise, a diplomatic exercise, but not as easy as you might think. The group is still very diverse. We have a larger BRICS than we used to have, so agreements are not as easy. And working with the BRICS within this geopolitical scenario that we have these days is never easy. Anything that you say, any message that the BRICS send to the world will be necessarily interpreted as a message of the group. And well, we are seeing what we are seeing these last couple of days, and many people interpret what that might be a consequence of the BRICS. So in our own domain, in the BRICS, we had two main work streams. One of them was the very working group on cooperation on ICTs. Which actually had a very interesting work this year. We worked on meaningful connectivity on space sustainability for the first time, which is also an ITU agenda. And we had the support in both lines of work. We worked on environmental sustainability, which is very interesting also. And we did a mapping of the digital ecosystems in all BRICS countries. So it was a very interesting exercise for us. And we were also glad that we could have an annex to the ministerial declaration that touched on specifically on space sustainability. And Anatel, which is sitting by my side, will be able to continue this work still this year. We also had as a second work stream, the work on the leaders declaration on artificial intelligence, or the governance of artificial intelligence. It is, if you’re here, you didn’t have a chance to read it, I’m sure, because it’s seven pages long. But we should think that we believe that this is the first document. And South Africa was there with us, of course, negotiating very constructively. And this is the first document that comes from the global South with this kind of content, which is very concrete and very well-structured. So we’re very proud of the work that we did together there too. Finally, moving to the. process, and I’ll be brief. We’ve been discussing with this for a while this week, but what I wanted to say is that we work together, Brazil and South Africa, within the G77. I’m not really optimistic in terms of what we see in New York these days. We are going to be discussing with the co-facilitators this afternoon. I think we have a session to discuss the elements paper and the prospects for the negotiation itself, but we don’t see the group, the G77 plus China, really energized around the discussion. There’s a lot of pessimism and I’m afraid that we may have to, you know, keep defending what we achieved in the last 20 years and that we do not advance much in terms of, you know, what we see as an opportunity, which is, in a way, to have an agenda update, to discuss governance mechanisms so as to make them less complex and more effective. Also, we think that we should explore the possible ways to converge the GDC and the WSIS processes, but if there’s a message I’d like to leave behind today, I think that we see the WSIS plus 20 as an opportunity to strengthen both the most stakeholder and the multilateral channels of governance. We don’t think they’re contradictory and we see, I see from my own position, there’s a strong demand from governments in terms of how they will be able to fulfill their own roles and responsibilities. So, we have to be able to steer their societies to the future and be able to create a concrete value for citizens. We believe, above all, that this status quo may not be ideal and that we may have to engage in exercises, leaving dogmas behind, as a wise speaker said in the very first session that I participated in this event today. So that’s what I wanted to tell you this morning, and I’m open for a rich conversation if that’s your wish. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you, Marcelo. Now I give the word for South Africa, please.

Jim Paterson: Thank you very much, and good morning. Yes, I think a lot of what you’ve said has resonated a lot with us. I think your experiences around organizing the G20, we had many similar experiences. We were also a bit fortunate, I must say, because Brazil was very keen to come and share their experiences in organizing such a momentous series of activities. So we had some dialogue between our respective governments before we took up the responsibility. So we had an inkling about what was coming, and it is a big progress. There’s an awful lot of coordination-type meetings. It seems almost to be a non-stop series of meetings, in fact. I think the other thing where we were a little bit fortunate at one level was that you indicated the challenge, I think, within the G20 about introducing issues that are really pro-development. and relevant for developing countries, because the forum is not really that well designed for that. And I think that has always been a challenge, because often under different countries presidencies, they’re not very receptive to to development, developing country issues. But we, South Africa, fortunately came in after a sequence of developing countries. So we’d had Indonesia, India, yourselves as Brazil. So there was something we could build on that was really focused more towards developing countries. And of course, it might be a while before that happens again. So we kind of felt that it would be important to do what we could in during our presidency. And so we picked up on a number of the key issues, I think, that had been discussed in the previous presidencies to see how we could advance those. And I think for us, what was really important, I think we had quite a few good discussions, we have one of our knowledge partners here with us, Alison. So she helped us quite a lot to get a good focus, I think. And one of the most important things was to prioritise digital inclusion. So we built directly on universal and meaningful connectivity and looked at what that can mean. And I think for us, we use that as a kind of way of trying to set the scene around the need to have digital inclusion across all aspects that you need to look at the impact of different technologies in terms of what it means for inclusion and development. So I think that was a very key part for us to kick off. And then we looked at digital public infrastructure, of course, he did some work on this in Brazil, and it was introduced for the first time by India. And there we were looking at, I think the main focus for us was to look at an integrated governance system around that to pick up on some of that had been quite a lot of discussions, as you would expect within the G20 around governance issues, but I think we felt that we needed to try and put that into some sort of structure. So that’s what we’ve attempted to do. And we’ve also looked at the idea around public value. I think we’ve presented it as measuring, but it’s a bit more than that. It’s about trying to ensure that the design of DPI maximizes the potential for public value so that you don’t lose those kind of dynamic effects that can happen from digital public infrastructure. As an infrastructure, there’s a lot of different ways in which it can impact across the economy and across society. And I think our starting point for that discussion was the realization, I think, from a UK academic, actually, that most infrastructure projects do not really consider the full value of all impact of what they do. They just look at a single use case and then decide, which is a rather strange approach when you consider public investment, because there should be a much deeper reflection about the overall impact that public infrastructure can have on the economy and on society. So those were two key elements for us. And of course, they relate completely, because one of the most important things we emphasized right from the time in India was that you need to make sure that you have universal and meaningful connectivity for digital public infrastructure, so everybody can benefit from those services. And in fact, DPI itself can be a demand driver for digital inclusion, and it can be part of delivering those benefits to everybody in terms of having and services that are relevant to all citizens. So I think that was also very important for us. We looked also at the SME sector and they themselves are drivers for digital inclusion, but we were looking then at how do you enable them and include them in the digital inclusion policies and prescripts, but we were also looking at innovation ecosystems and how to, we have so many young, talented innovators in the country, but it’s very difficult to kind of convert all these good ideas and all this positive energy into successful businesses. So we were trying to look at how we can intervene to encourage and enable innovators in this way. And then lastly, we were looking at artificial intelligence, which is something you also did in Brazil. And it’s not been something that’s been discussed as much as you would expect within the G20, but I think there’s also a tendency for countries to sit back and see how technologies unfold before intervening, which is not always the best approach, I don’t think. So we were looking around the impact of artificial intelligence, the potential impact through design, through poor data, that can have on equality. And then we were looking at some other aspects, especially access to data for researchers and small, medium and micro enterprises, because that’s also a major challenge. Then how are they gonna get the data they need to be able to deliver? And I think one of the things that we had from Research ICT Africa was, and from the University of Pretoria, in fact, was around language modeling and the fact that you have a lot of data. in South Africa from the public broadcaster that can be used to develop language modelling in South Africa in indigenous languages. So that could be a very valuable tool for public services, it could be a valuable tool for the broadcaster itself, and it could be for right across society very useful. So that was also one of the other things. And then we did pick up on information integrity from Brazil. I think that was a big success of the Brazilian presidency because it wasn’t a subject that would obviously be accepted by member states. I think it was something that could have easily been rejected. So I think there were some good skillful presentations by the Brazilian presidency and negotiations around that. And I think also it was that moment because a lot of countries were having elections and they were really worried about what was going on. And I think you yourselves had a few big spats going on with certain social media companies as well. So there was a spirit, I think, that was driving us towards adopting something around information integrity. So we’ve continued with that work, looking at generative AI and the potential, the ability to produce deepfakes and what happens around that. Because obviously, the impact can be huge. We don’t always know how extensive, but we were looking at measures to try and control that. So we did get together a very interesting set of ideas. And I think like you, we’ve had quite a lot of potential documents that have flowed from that. I think we’ve tried to link everything that we’re doing to our own national situation so that we can translate, I think, everything into to projects that we can do at home in South Africa. So I think that’s our hope, that the discussion and the investment we made in these discussions doesn’t end here and now, that we try and take something forward that will help us. So I think those were most of the comments I have at this stage. So maybe we can open it up a bit. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you very much.

Annette Esterhuizen: Annette Esraeus and I’m from South Africa, trying to follow the G20 process. So two questions, one specifically for South Africa and one for both of you. And Jim, you said Brazil will be remembered, the G20 chairperson for the information integrity. I think Japan will remember, but data flows, I think. So what do you want South Africa to do? What do you want South Africa’s presidency to be remembered for? Is it going to be digital equality? What would you like us to give to the world as something that they’ll remember as a priority? And then to both of you, the G20 financial work is focusing, from what I can see, very much on financial, international financial architecture, reform, financial inclusion as a priority. We’re also in the WSIS renewal, where financing is actually, we all talk about, should we talk about enhanced cooperation or should we not? No one talks about, why are we not talking about financing? Financing is the big unfinished business from the WSIS process, delegated in 2003 to 2005, and now hardly even gets more than a paragraph in any official UN outcome report. Is there a possibility here, perhaps, to, with the G20 work, this focus on digital public infrastructure, which also raises the need for financing, and would countries like South Africa? Brazil be able to actually help us put financing seriously on the agenda of the WSIS plus 20 outcome?

Jim Paterson: That’s a difficult question. It sounds simple, but it’s not, because we made four priorities, so they’re all priorities in our view. But I think we would want to be remembered for all of them. But I think in particular, we want to, I think, put some, I think it’s maybe a little bit nationalistic in a way, but we would like to put energy from this into what we do domestically. But I think we’ve moved the debate a little bit in terms of digital inclusion, and I think that was important. And I think we’ve helped with digital public infrastructure. So that was also important. On digital innovation ecosystems, it was more really, I don’t think it’s a controversial subject. It’s not a difficult subject in that sense. So I would say probably more digital inclusion would be the bigger message. But also maybe on artificial intelligence and around access to data and data issues, generally, it’s not easy to discuss these things. So we have pushed that discussion more. And maybe the focus also maybe a little bit more on data as a public good. We’ve tried to introduce language around that. I don’t know how it’s going to go. And so those type of things. But I think we’re trying to build that concept of the need to be able to have an enabling environment for developing countries really try to advance that. That’s not a very clear answer, but maybe I’ll give you a clearer answer when we’ve been through the process and concluded it. I think on financing. I don’t think we can really introduce it at this stage in G20. It’s probably late, but I don’t believe the world begins and ends with a presidency of the G20. I think the issue can easily go beyond that. I would agree with you. They’ve just had the financing for development in Spain now. So I think that’s probably something we should look at very urgently. There’s not much focus on digital. So that’s probably something we should try and advance. But I do agree with you. It’s really important. I think there were some problems from our side with the original outcomes on financing, and probably that’s why we didn’t ourselves push it as much. But it’s definitely a priority for us.

Marcelo Martinez: Let me just add to what Jim already said. In a year away from what we did in our G20, we are able, Jim, to see that there is definitely a domestic legacy to what we do. We see our internal institutions or domestic institutions really with a better sense of what happens in the world. They are really a lot more involved in international meetings. They respond more and with more quality with all the consultations that we submit. And they are really, especially I would say, strengthening bilateral ties with other countries, both G20 and non-G20 countries, but mostly G20 countries. So I see a great benefit there from our presidency, and I think that was worth the investment that we did. On financing, this is a very deep question, of course. I think that if we wanted to simplify it, I would say that… There is a bureaucratic explanation for that and there is a strategic explanation to that. The bureaucratic one would be that, well, since 20 years ago, the first WSIS, we have the digital agenda in a way under the development agenda. It was first the MDGs and now the SDGs. When you read the documents, you actually read them. When you read the GDC, for instance, you kind of get a doubt, is this going to end in 2030 or not, perhaps? But in a way, it bothers me a little bit, of course, that we want the digital to be under this development narrative. This is actually one of the greatest achievements that we had in the original WSIS. And I can say it really with a peace of mind that that would not be possible today, to achieve what we achieved 20 years ago. And that’s why we defend it with all our power and strength. But I think that when you frame it this way, of course, you have in New York, when we negotiate any digital matter, it falls under the development, the Commission for Development. We are at the G77 negotiating together. We do not negotiate on a national basis. This is also, this is a strength in a way. This is actually quite difficult and most often. But that’s the way it is. That’s the way it’s framed. And we, of course, if you talk about financing, it immediately is directed to the Conferences on Financing for Development. I also met Isabel when we last met. I used to work for Sustainable Development then. We negotiated the 2030 agenda then. and with all its, you know, complexities. And then I left at Isabela with a clear impression that we had achieved nothing at all. I saw the people at the final session in the conference room, everybody applauding, and I kept asking myself, what are these people applauding? And once I joined the digital track back in Brasilia a couple of years later, I could see how this is not really happening, and how the digital, well, financing is way more difficult than it used to be these days. And the digital track being under the development larger track, it is a bureaucratic explanation for that not to happen. At the G20 in particular, when we tried to talk about financing of our infrastructure, immediately several countries say, and now there’s the strategic maybe consideration there, that we should not be talking about it there, that this is not the mandate of the group in the SHRPAS track. So it doesn’t happen. And several countries still try to do it. Like Saudi Arabia tried to create a fund. It ended up being an organization that they have, a very regional organization, DCA, I think, or something like that. Exactly. And then India tried to do the same thing, and they practically gave it up. So we actually launched in our presidency a global initiative on information integrity and climate change. We launched it at the summit. This ended up being a fund at UNESCO, but of course it was never framed as a G20 initiative, and that’s why it is working in the end. We have several countries that joined. Only Brazil made a contribution to this point, but we expect to. more to come, because we just had our first open call and we received more than 500 projects to finance and now there’s the finance aspect there, so maybe we can do that there and other countries can do that in their own limited group of countries that have the same objective, but it’s never easy.

Audience: Sorry I just wanted to flag for Jeremy perhaps, but just to say I think reasonably and controversially one of the items on the digital inclusion is actually the funding of digital public statistics, so also another project with ITU, obviously something we’ve been struggling for forever on, we did try to include it in the global digital compact, so we got the commitment to data, of course now it’s easy to get the commitment to public statistics and stuff as the basis of that data, but funding that, and yeah, I mean we’ve drawn on the CETIC experience and model and had proposed that we try and get a portion of domain name fund at an international level and hoping to be able to pursue that, but we’ll have to see about that, but I think one has to start any kind of solidarity funding, because that’s the only way it works, I mean most African countries wouldn’t be able to, that mechanism wouldn’t work, they wouldn’t have enough fees from, and they’ve got other priorities for those fees, so it would have to be a kind of global solidarity kind of thing, and I think those are just a big challenge, so they, often in the first round of some of these documents, but as soon as it’s, you’re talking about the money, put the money to the principal, and they tend to drop off. I just wanted to also just comment very briefly as Jim had mentioned or asked in the beginning, and also because Jackie is there from Brazil T20. But just to speak about the T20 legacy, and I think sure there are other engagement groups of the Brazilian Troika leadership, but as you’re starting with India, which began to draw on Global South knowledge partners, and also on the think tanks, which had traditionally been dominated very much by the Ivy Leagues and Global North institutions. And then, of course, Brazil really opened that up. So under data privacy, I think there were six of the task forces, and I think five of us were women from Global South, only one Brazilian. And then, of course, we’ve now got that coming through from India. So there’s really a strong cohort that’s been working on now on DPI, on AI, digital inclusion, of course, has come through in all three strands. And very strongly, the data governance legacy from the Brazilian G20 and from the T and C20 is really cutting all of the themes that we’ve got. And our themes, basically, shadow or mirror, or hopefully push the South African agenda. And perhaps just also to say, having the privilege of working across both groups, but not speaking on behalf of the G20 of all, of course, is that as my organisation, we’ve also worked extensively on the continent for two decades now. And I think what has been very strong, Jim, I would say out of this has been the presidency’s commitment to this being an African G20. And so a lot of the working groups within these things are being led by the African Union. and with a lot of support of new organizations that haven’t traditionally been allowed. So ADET from the UN is also a knowledge partners that I think haven’t been used as much previously, but obviously now’s the time. And just to say, and I think Jackie might want to just pick up with that, but there have been discussions about, especially because of the situation we’re in and the situation that we’re in, about what you do around supporting young people and new T20 members that are going to come in. And one doesn’t know what that’s going to look like. I know some of us have been working with the Canadian C, whatever, Canadian T20, C7, to do joint things in trying to get some of the, what I think is quite positive from Canada’s side, to get some of these issues taken forward. So we’ll see what that delivers. And then also because this floating nature of the G20 and therefore all the engagement groups as well, trying to create some sort of permanent repository. Because I mean, I think Brazil’s done a great job of putting up a lot of those documents there, but as things move and time moves and that sort of thing. So to try and get a kind of repository of some kind that can be kind of updated repository. So not just publications, because of course we will all do that, but get some of that. So I don’t know if Jackie just wanted to also just comment on anything on that, but I think it’s been a strong legacy from the three, from the trip.

Moderator: Sure.

Marcelo Martinez: Just wanted to react to your first comment, Alison. I think that it really strikes me really, especially the fact that we are in this conference, this is the first time I come to this conference and we’ve always been. you know, dealing with the numbers during, as we structure the discourse or narratives for the G20 and then for the BRICS, and we always work with this number that one third of humanity is not connected. And you were the first one to mention something that I’ve been thinking a lot lately. Since we began working with meaningful connectivity yesterday, you mentioned that this problem is a lot worse. As we did this exercise in Brazil, where over 90% of the population is connected, we got to the conclusion that only 20% has meaningful connectivity, meaning has the connection, the quality and conditions that we all have in this room. So if you look at the other way, it’s 80% of the population doesn’t have it. So if Brazil is the world’s average, my God, this number is much worse. So we should be working with a different number, but I really want to know what that number is. Because we are here at the most, maybe most important event in this area, and we don’t know it. No one has this number, and we have to keep working on it. I don’t know how close we are to the SDG targets, because we don’t have the data. Same exercise in the BRICS, within the BRICS. But since, of course, there are sensitive disease, we only circulated results within the BRICS countries. But we are now proposing to do the very same exercise again with CITIC for Mercosur countries and expanded Mercosur perhaps. So this is a message that we really think that every country in the world should embrace and try to measure that.

Moderator: Unfortunately, we are very on time and we need to… to finish the session. Just if Britain can just give us short, very short words to close the because he was there. And so thank you very much. And then we need to close maybe

Speaker: very quickly. You know, this is I’m the ITU Sherpa G20 Sherpa. So this was my 7th G20, the South African one. Honestly, you know, for us, the ITU, this was a very unique window because you know, we had three large developing countries, India’s, you know, Brazil and South Africa, assuming presidencies one after the other, probably Indonesia, if you count the one before. So and we saw that the topics and these are all been landmark presidencies because it was also very difficult geopolitically during all these three presidencies. And it’s been a very landmark set of presidencies primarily because you know, you have topics such as AI to some extent, but it’s maturing here, you know, digital infrastructure, investment financing, which was actually launched during your presidency. You know, so there are many of these pieces of information integrity. Typically, G20 presidencies in the past have been very conservative, you know, you’d you go back to existing text, not in these three, you know, been very bold. And thanks to the growing influence of all three countries geopolitically, you’ve pushed through the agenda, you know, so that’s something to be very proud of. And again, in topics such as DPI, I started in the Indian presidency, the conversations kind of develop during your presidency. In the South African presidency, I can see that they’re maturing because there are frameworks that are being spoken about on all three topics, I could say the same, you know, so I think it’s extremely important that and the next one again goes back to a developed country. So we don’t know what will happen there. But I think it’s extremely important that, you know, this cycle of the G20 be viewed very optimistically because because you’ve achieved a lot. And tying it to the WSIS framework, I think when you invited us as knowledge partners of the ITU, most of the programs that we’ve supported you on, most of the priorities, these have all been part of programs at the ITU where the WSIS framework has driven these programs in every topic you can think of. So I think for us as UN agencies, there is a direct tie between the action lines, between the activities we’ve done and what you’ve achieved and what we’ve supported you for. So again, we are very grateful for the opportunities. I have my, you know, the G20 bag that Jim has given us, Jim and the team has given us, but also my mother, my father-in-law, they all carry G20 bags back in India. So we are very grateful for that also and for the opportunity, honestly.

Moderator: Yeah. Thank you very much for everybody. Thank you. Recording stopped.

Agreement points

G20 presidency is extremely resource-intensive and challenging for developing countries

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson

Arguments

Organizing G20 is extremely resource-intensive for developing countries, requiring whole-of-government coordination with 50+ people and 15+ organizations

South Africa benefited from Brazil’s experience sharing and built upon the sequence of developing country presidencies

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that organizing G20 presidency requires massive coordination efforts, extensive human and financial resources, and creates significant stress for developing countries. They emphasize the value of experience sharing between presidencies.

Topics

Development

Sequence of developing country presidencies created unique opportunity for development-focused agendas

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson
– Speaker

Arguments

G20 presidency presents both opportunities and contradictions for developing countries, requiring careful balance between leadership and multilateral diplomacy

Three consecutive developing country presidencies (Indonesia, India, Brazil) created unprecedented opportunity to advance development-focused agendas

ITU recognizes three consecutive developing country presidencies as landmark period achieving bold agenda advancement

Summary

All speakers recognize that the consecutive developing country presidencies (Indonesia, India, Brazil, South Africa) represented a unique and landmark period that allowed for bold advancement of development-focused agendas, which may not occur again for some time.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Digital inclusion should be central priority with meaningful connectivity as foundation

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson

Arguments

Brazil successfully brought meaningful connectivity discussion from ITU/Geneva to mainstream G20 agenda, making it globally recognized

Current connectivity statistics are misleading – while 90% of Brazil’s population is connected, only 20% has meaningful connectivity

South Africa prioritized digital inclusion as central theme, building on universal and meaningful connectivity work

Summary

Both countries prioritized digital inclusion and meaningful connectivity, with Brazil mainstreaming the concept globally and South Africa building upon this work. They share concern that current connectivity statistics are misleading and that meaningful connectivity is the real measure of digital inclusion.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Information integrity successfully introduced and continued across presidencies

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson

Arguments

Brazil introduced information integrity as new topic in G20 despite risks, contributing to its inclusion in Global Digital Compact

South Africa continued information integrity work, focusing on generative AI and deepfakes control measures

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge Brazil’s successful introduction of information integrity as a new G20 topic and South Africa’s continuation of this work, particularly focusing on emerging challenges like generative AI and deepfakes.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Digital Public Infrastructure requires integrated approach linking to digital inclusion

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson

Arguments

Brazil continued India’s DPI work as basic tool for digital inclusion with horizontal dimension approach

South Africa focused on integrated governance systems for DPI and measuring public value to maximize impact

Digital public infrastructure can serve as both beneficiary and driver of digital inclusion

Summary

Both countries view DPI as fundamental for digital inclusion, with Brazil treating it as a basic tool with horizontal dimensions and South Africa focusing on integrated governance and public value measurement. They agree on the symbiotic relationship between DPI and digital inclusion.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Similar viewpoints

Both countries emphasize the need to shift AI discussions from purely risk-focused approaches to include development perspectives, particularly addressing challenges faced by developing countries in accessing data and participating in AI innovation.

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson

Arguments

AI discussions need to include development perspective, not just focus on risks and ethics

Data access for researchers and SMEs presents major challenge for AI development in developing countries

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Multiple speakers identify financing as a critical unfinished business from WSIS, with structural and bureaucratic barriers preventing adequate attention to digital financing needs. They agree that current frameworks limit direct financing discussions.

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Annette Esterhuizen
– Audience

Arguments

Digital agenda’s placement under development framework creates bureaucratic barriers to dedicated financing discussions

G20 mandate limitations prevent direct financing discussions, forcing alternative approaches like UNESCO fund creation

Financing remains major unfinished business from original WSIS process, relegated to development agenda framework

Digital public statistics funding requires global solidarity mechanisms rather than national fee-based approaches

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers highlight South Africa’s distinctive approach of emphasizing African leadership, continental involvement, and support for local innovation ecosystems, particularly for young innovators.

Speakers

– Jim Paterson
– Audience

Arguments

South Africa emphasized enabling young innovators to convert ideas into successful businesses through supportive ecosystems

South African presidency emphasized African G20 approach with African Union leadership and continental organization involvement

Topics

Development | Economic

Unexpected consensus

Global South knowledge partnership transformation in G20 engagement groups

Speakers

– Audience
– Speaker

Arguments

T20 engagement groups shifted toward Global South knowledge partners and think tanks under developing country presidencies

ITU recognizes three consecutive developing country presidencies as landmark period achieving bold agenda advancement

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on how the developing country presidencies fundamentally transformed the knowledge partnership landscape in G20, moving away from traditional Ivy League and Global North dominance toward meaningful Global South participation. This represents a structural shift in how global digital governance discussions are informed.

Topics

Development

BRICS as effective platform for Global South digital governance despite geopolitical challenges

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson

Arguments

BRICS produced first comprehensive AI governance document from Global South perspective

BRICS cooperation included ICT working groups, space sustainability, and environmental sustainability mapping

Explanation

Despite acknowledging BRICS as a challenging diplomatic exercise in current geopolitical context, both speakers found unexpected consensus on its effectiveness as a platform for Global South digital governance, particularly in producing substantive outcomes like the first comprehensive AI governance document from Global South perspective.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus among speakers on key issues including the transformative impact of consecutive developing country G20 presidencies, the importance of digital inclusion and meaningful connectivity, the need for development-focused approaches to emerging technologies like AI, and the ongoing challenges with financing mechanisms for digital development. There was also agreement on the resource-intensive nature of G20 presidencies for developing countries and the value of experience sharing.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for global digital governance. The agreement among Global South representatives suggests a coordinated approach to advancing development-focused digital agendas in international forums. The consensus on financing challenges indicates a shared priority for addressing structural barriers in international digital development funding. The unexpected consensus on knowledge partnership transformation suggests lasting institutional changes in how global digital governance discussions are informed and conducted.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Measurement and scope of connectivity challenges

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez

Arguments

Current connectivity statistics are misleading – while 90% of Brazil’s population is connected, only 20% has meaningful connectivity

Explanation

While not a direct disagreement between speakers, Martinez challenges the commonly accepted narrative about global connectivity that other speakers seem to accept. His revelation that Brazil’s internal analysis shows only 20% meaningful connectivity despite 90% basic connectivity suggests the global digital divide is far worse than commonly understood. This represents an unexpected challenge to conventional wisdom that could have significant implications for policy approaches.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkably high levels of agreement among speakers, with most disagreements being tactical rather than strategic. The main areas of difference center on approaches to financing digital initiatives and the current state of multilateral negotiations.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers demonstrate strong alignment on priorities (digital inclusion, meaningful connectivity, DPI, information integrity) and challenges (resource constraints, geopolitical difficulties). The disagreements that exist are primarily about implementation approaches and timing rather than fundamental goals. This high level of consensus among Global South representatives suggests strong potential for continued collaboration, though the financing challenge remains a significant obstacle that requires creative solutions beyond traditional frameworks.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both countries emphasize the need to shift AI discussions from purely risk-focused approaches to include development perspectives, particularly addressing challenges faced by developing countries in accessing data and participating in AI innovation.

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Jim Paterson

Arguments

AI discussions need to include development perspective, not just focus on risks and ethics

Data access for researchers and SMEs presents major challenge for AI development in developing countries

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Multiple speakers identify financing as a critical unfinished business from WSIS, with structural and bureaucratic barriers preventing adequate attention to digital financing needs. They agree that current frameworks limit direct financing discussions.

Speakers

– Marcelo Martinez
– Annette Esterhuizen
– Audience

Arguments

Digital agenda’s placement under development framework creates bureaucratic barriers to dedicated financing discussions

G20 mandate limitations prevent direct financing discussions, forcing alternative approaches like UNESCO fund creation

Financing remains major unfinished business from original WSIS process, relegated to development agenda framework

Digital public statistics funding requires global solidarity mechanisms rather than national fee-based approaches

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers highlight South Africa’s distinctive approach of emphasizing African leadership, continental involvement, and support for local innovation ecosystems, particularly for young innovators.

Speakers

– Jim Paterson
– Audience

Arguments

South Africa emphasized enabling young innovators to convert ideas into successful businesses through supportive ecosystems

South African presidency emphasized African G20 approach with African Union leadership and continental organization involvement

Topics

Development | Economic

Key takeaways

G20 presidency by developing countries (Indonesia, India, Brazil, South Africa) created unprecedented opportunity to advance development-focused digital agendas, with each presidency building on previous work

Meaningful connectivity statistics are misleading – while connectivity rates appear high (90% in Brazil), only 20% have truly meaningful connectivity, suggesting global digital divide is much worse than reported

Brazil successfully mainstreamed previously niche topics like information integrity and meaningful connectivity from specialized forums (ITU/Geneva) to global G20 agenda and Global Digital Compact

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) requires integrated governance systems and public value measurement to maximize impact, with universal meaningful connectivity as prerequisite

BRICS produced first comprehensive AI governance document from Global South perspective, emphasizing development benefits rather than just risks and ethics

Financing remains the major unfinished business from original WSIS process, with bureaucratic and strategic barriers preventing dedicated digital financing discussions in current frameworks

Domestic legacy of G20 presidencies includes strengthened institutional capacity, better international engagement, and enhanced bilateral cooperation for organizing countries

Resolutions and action items

Brazil proposed conducting meaningful connectivity measurement exercises with CETIC for Mercosur countries and expanded Mercosur

South Africa committed to translating G20 discussions into domestic projects and national implementation

Anatel (Brazil) will continue space sustainability work initiated in BRICS throughout the year

Co-facilitators session scheduled to discuss WSIS+20 elements paper and negotiation prospects

T20 engagement groups exploring creation of permanent repository for G20 documents and knowledge products

Continued collaboration between Brazil and South Africa within G77 framework for WSIS+20 negotiations

Unresolved issues

Lack of accurate global data on meaningful connectivity rates – participants acknowledged not knowing the true extent of digital divide

WSIS+20 negotiations showing limited energy and pessimism within G77+China group with unclear prospects for advancement

Financing mechanisms for digital development remain unresolved, with no clear pathway identified for dedicated digital financing discussions

How to converge Global Digital Compact and WSIS processes remains unclear

Uncertainty about maintaining development-focused agenda when G20 presidency returns to developed countries

Challenge of sustaining Global South knowledge partnerships and think tank engagement in future G20 cycles

Unresolved governance mechanisms for making digital governance less complex and more effective

Suggested compromises

Leaving dogmas behind in WSIS+20 discussions to enable progress beyond defending existing achievements

Strengthening both multistakeholder and multilateral governance channels as complementary rather than contradictory approaches

Using alternative funding mechanisms (like UNESCO fund) when direct G20 financing discussions face mandate limitations

Exploring global solidarity funding mechanisms for digital public statistics rather than relying on national fee-based approaches

Framing digital issues within existing development agenda framework while working to advance dedicated digital financing through Financing for Development conferences

For a developing country to engage in such an exercise [G20 presidency] – it is a very stressful exercise. It drives us to our own limits in terms of human resources, in terms of financial resources, too… But both Brazil and South Africa, we’re both staunch defenders of multilateralism. So we have, then, an opportunity to send messages to the 20 largest economies… But at the same time, we have to do it in a very careful way so that we make it clear that we’re not trying to convert our own vision in messages or trying to impose our vision to the rest of the world.

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Reason

This comment reveals the fundamental tension developing countries face when leading global forums – having the opportunity to influence global agendas while being constrained by limited resources and the need to maintain diplomatic balance. It exposes the structural inequalities in global governance.

Impact

This set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing the core challenge both countries faced. It led Jim Paterson to acknowledge similar experiences and shaped the conversation around how developing countries can effectively use their leadership positions despite constraints.

Since we began working with meaningful connectivity yesterday, you mentioned that this problem is a lot worse. As we did this exercise in Brazil, where over 90% of the population is connected, we got to the conclusion that only 20% has meaningful connectivity… So if you look at the other way, it’s 80% of the population doesn’t have it. So if Brazil is the world’s average, my God, this number is much worse.

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the conventional narrative about digital connectivity by revealing that traditional connection statistics mask a much deeper problem. It suggests that the global digital divide is far more severe than commonly understood.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion from celebrating connectivity achievements to recognizing the inadequacy of current metrics. It reinforced the importance of meaningful connectivity as a policy priority and highlighted the need for better data collection methods.

There is a bureaucratic explanation for that and there is a strategic explanation to that… when you frame it [digital agenda] this way, of course, you have in New York, when we negotiate any digital matter, it falls under the development… And we, of course, if you talk about financing, it immediately is directed to the Conferences on Financing for Development.

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Reason

This comment provides crucial insight into why digital financing remains underdeveloped in international forums. It reveals how institutional structures and bureaucratic categorizations can inadvertently limit policy effectiveness by compartmentalizing interconnected issues.

Impact

This explanation helped contextualize Annette’s earlier question about financing and provided a framework for understanding systemic barriers to digital development funding. It moved the conversation from ‘what should be done’ to ‘why it’s not being done.’

I think we felt that we needed to try and put that [DPI governance] into some sort of structure… And we’ve also looked at the idea around public value. I think we’ve presented it as measuring, but it’s a bit more than that. It’s about trying to ensure that the design of DPI maximizes the potential for public value so that you don’t lose those kind of dynamic effects that can happen from digital public infrastructure.

Speaker

Jim Paterson

Reason

This comment introduces a sophisticated approach to digital public infrastructure that goes beyond technical implementation to consider broader societal impact. It challenges the tendency to focus on single use cases rather than systemic value creation.

Impact

This shifted the discussion toward more holistic thinking about digital infrastructure and influenced the conversation about how developing countries can maximize returns on digital investments. It connected technical infrastructure to broader development outcomes.

Typically, G20 presidencies in the past have been very conservative, you know, you’d you go back to existing text, not in these three, you know, been very bold. And thanks to the growing influence of all three countries geopolitically, you’ve pushed through the agenda… And the next one again goes back to a developed country. So we don’t know what will happen there.

Speaker

ITU representative

Reason

This comment provides historical context that frames the recent developing country presidencies as exceptional and potentially transformative. It also introduces uncertainty about continuity, highlighting the fragility of progress in international forums.

Impact

This observation validated the significance of the work done by Brazil and South Africa while introducing urgency about preserving gains. It reinforced the importance of the current moment and the need for strategic thinking about legacy and continuity.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond surface-level policy descriptions to deeper structural analysis. Martinez’s opening remarks about the contradictions facing developing countries in global leadership roles established a framework for understanding the entire conversation. His revelation about meaningful connectivity challenged conventional wisdom and highlighted data gaps that affect policy effectiveness. The bureaucratic explanation for financing difficulties provided crucial institutional context that helped explain persistent challenges. Paterson’s focus on public value and systematic approaches to DPI demonstrated sophisticated policy thinking, while the ITU representative’s historical perspective validated the significance of recent developing country leadership while highlighting the precarious nature of progress. Together, these comments created a multi-layered discussion that addressed not just what these countries accomplished, but why certain approaches worked, what barriers remain, and how progress might be sustained. The conversation evolved from a simple comparison of experiences to a nuanced analysis of global governance dynamics, structural inequalities, and strategic opportunities for developing countries in digital policy leadership.

What is the actual number/percentage of people globally who have meaningful connectivity (not just basic connectivity)?

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Explanation

Martinez highlighted that while they work with the statistic that one-third of humanity is not connected, when Brazil measured meaningful connectivity, only 20% had quality connections despite 90% being connected. He emphasized the need to know the real global numbers for meaningful connectivity to properly assess progress toward SDG targets.

How can financing be effectively integrated into the WSIS+20 process and digital development agenda?

Speaker

Annette Esterhuizen

Explanation

Esterhuizen pointed out that financing is the ‘big unfinished business’ from the WSIS process and questioned whether G20 work on digital public infrastructure could help put financing seriously on the WSIS+20 agenda, as it currently receives minimal attention in UN outcome reports.

How can a global solidarity funding mechanism be established for digital public statistics?

Speaker

Alison Gillwald (Audience member)

Explanation

Gillwald mentioned exploring the possibility of using a portion of domain name funds at an international level for funding digital public statistics, noting that most African countries wouldn’t be able to fund this independently and would need a global solidarity mechanism.

How can a permanent repository be created for G20 engagement group documents and knowledge?

Speaker

Alison Gillwald (Audience member)

Explanation

Due to the floating nature of G20 presidencies, there’s a need for a permanent repository that can serve as an updated knowledge base beyond just publications, to preserve the institutional memory and progress made across different presidencies.

How can the BRICS meaningful connectivity measurement exercise be expanded to other regional groups?

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Explanation

Martinez mentioned proposing to conduct the same meaningful connectivity measurement exercise with CETIC for Mercosur countries and expanded Mercosur, suggesting this methodology should be embraced by every country globally.

How can the G77 plus China group be energized around WSIS+20 discussions?

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Explanation

Martinez expressed concern about the lack of energy and pessimism within the G77 plus China group regarding WSIS+20 negotiations, indicating a need to find ways to engage this important negotiating bloc more effectively.

How can WSIS and GDC processes be converged effectively?

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Explanation

Martinez mentioned the need to explore possible ways to converge the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and WSIS processes, suggesting this as an area requiring further investigation and strategic planning.

Summary

This discussion, led by Dr. Hakikur Rahman from International Standard University and Dr. Anujit Kumar Dutta from City University Bangladesh, focused on bridging the digital divide through inclusive ICT policies for sustainable development, presented as part of celebrating 20 years of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). The presenters highlighted that over 2.6 billion people remain offline globally, with significant barriers including affordability, lack of digital literacy, and inadequate infrastructure particularly affecting marginalized communities. They proposed a three-pillar framework for addressing these challenges: inclusion, ethics, and sustainability.

The inclusion pillar emphasized universal connectivity through affordable broadband, community networks, local content in multiple languages, and capacity building programs, citing successful examples like India’s Digital India initiative and Kenya’s Community Networks. The ethics pillar focused on data rights, privacy protection, transparent AI systems, and human rights-based technology design, referencing the EU AI Act and UNESCO AI Ethics guidelines as positive examples. The sustainability pillar addressed green ICT practices, energy-efficient infrastructure, e-waste management, and equitable public-private partnerships, highlighting Rwanda’s green ICT strategy and Estonia’s e-residency program.

Dr. Dutta provided detailed statistics about Bangladesh’s digital landscape, showing significant urban-rural gaps in internet access, gender disparities in ICT participation, and growing but uneven digital infrastructure development. The presentation concluded with policy recommendations including multi-stakeholder collaboration, embedding human rights in technology design, supporting innovation in safe environments, and developing regional frameworks for coordinated policy implementation. The speakers emphasized that creating inclusive, ethical, and sustainable ICT ecosystems requires collective action to ensure digital transformation benefits all communities rather than widening existing divides.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Digital Divide and Global Connectivity Gaps**: The presenters highlighted that over 2.6 billion people remain offline globally, with significant barriers including affordability, lack of digital literacy (one in four people lack basic digital skills), and inadequate infrastructure, particularly affecting marginalized communities.

– **Three-Pillar Framework for Inclusive ICT Policies**: The discussion centered on a comprehensive approach involving: (1) Inclusion through universal connectivity and meaningful access, (2) Ethics-centered digital governance with human rights focus, and (3) Sustainability through green ICT and equitable growth strategies.

– **Bangladesh’s Digital Landscape and Challenges**: Extensive analysis of Bangladesh’s ICT development, including urban-rural digital gaps (92% internet access in urban areas vs. 50-58% in rural areas), gender disparities in internet usage, and the growth of ICT sector employment from 165,000 jobs in 2022 to 310,000 in 2024.

– **Policy Examples and Best Practices**: Discussion of successful international initiatives including India’s Digital India program, Kenya’s Community Networks, EU AI Act, Rwanda’s Green ICT Strategy, and Estonia’s e-residency program as models for inclusive digital transformation.

– **Environmental and Ethical Concerns in ICT**: Address of sustainability challenges including e-waste management (Bangladesh generates 600 kilotons with only 3% recycled), carbon emissions from ICT sectors, and the need for ethical AI governance and data privacy protection.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to present research findings and policy recommendations for bridging the digital divide through inclusive, ethical, and sustainable ICT policies, specifically in the context of celebrating 20 years of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and addressing ongoing global digital inequalities.

**Overall Tone:**

The discussion maintained a formal, academic tone throughout, characteristic of a research presentation or conference session. The tone was collaborative and solution-oriented, with both presenters working together to deliver comprehensive findings. While technical and data-heavy, the presentation remained accessible and focused on practical policy implications. The tone remained consistently professional from introduction through conclusion, with expressions of gratitude toward organizers and participants at the end.

Speakers

– **Hakikur Rahman** (also referred to as “Haktikur Rahman” in transcript)

– Title: Dr./Professor

– Role: Representative from International Standard University, Bangladesh

– Area of expertise: ICT policies, digital divide, sustainable development

– **Ranojit Kumar Dutta** (also referred to as “Anujit Kumar Dutta” in transcript)

– Title: Dr.

– Role: Representative from City University, Bangladesh

– Area of expertise: ICT infrastructure, digital literacy, data governance

**Additional speakers:**

– **Ms. Kitanjali**

– Title: Ms.

– Role: Team member/organizer (mentioned in closing remarks)

– Area of expertise: Not specified

– **Mr. Ruth**

– Title: Mr.

– Role: Team member/organizer (mentioned in closing remarks)

– Area of expertise: Not specified

# Bridging the Digital Divide Through Inclusive ICT Policies for Sustainable Development

## Executive Summary

This presentation, delivered as part of session 413 of the 20th anniversary celebration of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), examined policy solutions for bridging the global digital divide. Dr. Hakikur Rahman from International Standard University, Bangladesh, presented a comprehensive three-pillar framework for inclusive ICT policies, while Dr. Ranojit Kumar Dutta from City University Bangladesh provided detailed empirical analysis of Bangladesh’s digital landscape as a developing nation case study.

The session highlighted that over 2.6 billion people remain offline globally, with significant barriers including affordability constraints, inadequate digital literacy, and insufficient infrastructure particularly affecting marginalized communities. The speakers presented both theoretical frameworks and statistical evidence demonstrating the multi-dimensional nature of digital inequalities and the need for comprehensive policy responses.

## Dr. Rahman’s Three-Pillar Framework for Inclusive ICT Policies

### The Scale of the Digital Divide

Dr. Rahman opened by establishing the magnitude of the global digital divide, citing International Telecommunication Union (ITU) statistics showing that over 2.6 billion people remain offline as of 2024. He emphasized that affordability remains a primary barrier, with internet access still out of reach for many, while digital literacy presents an equally significant challenge, with one in four people lacking basic digital skills necessary for meaningful participation in the digital economy.

### Three-Pillar Policy Framework

Dr. Rahman presented a comprehensive framework addressing digital inequalities through three interconnected pillars:

**Pillar 1: Inclusion Through Universal Connectivity**

This pillar emphasized universal connectivity through affordable broadband access, community networks, and local content development in multiple languages. Dr. Rahman highlighted successful international examples, including India’s Digital India initiative and Kenya’s Community Networks programme, demonstrating how locally-managed networks can serve underserved communities effectively. He stressed that meaningful access requires capacity building programmes that develop digital skills across different demographic groups.

**Pillar 2: Ethics-Centered Digital Governance**

The ethics pillar focused on protecting data rights, ensuring privacy protection, developing transparent AI systems, and embedding human rights considerations in technology design. Dr. Rahman referenced the European Union AI Act and UNESCO AI Ethics guidelines as positive examples of regulatory frameworks that prioritize ethical considerations in technology deployment.

**Pillar 3: Sustainability Through Green ICT Practices**

The sustainability pillar addressed environmental concerns through green ICT practices, energy-efficient infrastructure development, comprehensive e-waste management, and equitable public-private partnerships. Dr. Rahman highlighted Rwanda’s green ICT strategy and Estonia’s e-residency programme as innovative approaches that balance technological advancement with environmental responsibility.

### Policy Recommendations

Dr. Rahman outlined five key challenges and risks, including unintended consequences such as widening the divide and digital colonialism. His policy recommendations emphasized:

– Multi-stakeholder collaboration across government, private sector, civil society, and international organizations

– Human rights integration in technology design and deployment

– Innovation sandboxes for testing new technologies with appropriate safeguards

– Development of regional and global frameworks for coordinated policy implementation

## Dr. Dutta’s Bangladesh Case Study

### Infrastructure and Connectivity Patterns

Dr. Dutta provided extensive statistical analysis of Bangladesh’s digital transformation. The data revealed significant urban-rural disparities in internet access, with over 90% connectivity in urban areas compared to approximately 50-58% in rural regions. Broadband penetration showed remarkable growth from 5% in 2010 to 86% currently, indicating rapid infrastructure development while highlighting persistent geographic inequalities.

### Gender Disparities in Digital Participation

The presentation revealed persistent gender gaps across all aspects of digital participation. National internet usage statistics showed 67% participation among males compared to 47% among females. Urban areas showed male internet usage at 72% versus female usage at 58%, while rural areas demonstrated even starker differences with 61% male usage compared to only 38% female usage.

Despite these challenges, positive trends emerged in ICT education, with female enrollment in ICT-related higher education increasing from 22% in 2020 to 38% in 2024, suggesting that targeted interventions could effectively address gender disparities.

### Digital Literacy and Employment

Age-related digital literacy gaps presented significant challenges, with 72% digital literacy among the 15-20 age group compared to only 31% among those aged 45 and above. The ICT sector showed impressive employment growth, nearly doubling from 165,000 jobs in 2022 to 310,000 in 2024. However, barriers to ICT employment remained significant, with 46% of potential workers citing lack of advanced skills and 39% identifying poor internet infrastructure as primary obstacles.

### Cultural Representation and Indigenous Rights

Dr. Dutta’s analysis revealed disparities in cultural representation within digital media platforms. While mainstream entertainment content achieved 60% representation and news content reached 70%, indigenous content remained at only 5-15%. Government digital services showed partial indigenous language support, indicating ongoing challenges in ensuring that digital transformation serves all cultural communities effectively.

### Ethics and Environmental Challenges

The data showed significant gaps in ethical governance and data protection awareness, with Bangladesh’s data privacy awareness at 41% compared to the European Union’s 82%. The AI policy transparency index showed Bangladesh at 45% compared to the EU’s 88%.

Environmental concerns presented additional challenges, with Bangladesh generating 600 kilotons of e-waste with only a 3% recycling rate and 80% informal handling. Renewable energy adoption in ICT infrastructure showed 60% reliance on grid electricity, 28% solar power adoption, and 7% utilization of wind and other renewable sources.

## Key Findings and Implications

The presentation demonstrated that bridging the digital divide requires comprehensive approaches addressing multiple dimensions simultaneously. The theoretical framework presented by Dr. Rahman, combined with the empirical evidence from Dr. Dutta’s Bangladesh analysis, illustrated both the complexity of digital inequality challenges and the potential for targeted policy interventions.

The Bangladesh case study revealed that while significant progress has been made in expanding digital infrastructure and access, persistent disparities remain across geographic, gender, age, and cultural dimensions. The rapid growth in ICT employment and female participation in ICT education suggested positive trends, while the low rates of data privacy awareness and e-waste recycling highlighted areas requiring immediate policy attention.

## Conclusion

This session provided both theoretical frameworks and practical evidence for addressing digital divide challenges through inclusive ICT policies. Dr. Rahman’s three-pillar approach of inclusion, ethics, and sustainability offers a comprehensive foundation for policy development, while Dr. Dutta’s detailed statistical analysis of Bangladesh demonstrates both the opportunities and challenges facing developing nations in digital transformation.

The presentation emphasized that successful digital inclusion requires moving beyond simple connectivity metrics to address the quality and meaningfulness of digital access, while ensuring that technological advancement serves all communities equitably and sustainably. The combination of international best practices and local empirical evidence provides valuable insights for policymakers working to bridge digital divides in diverse national contexts.

Hakikur Rahman: This is Dr. Haktikur Rahman from International Standard University and with me Dr. Anujit Kumar Dutta from City University, Bangladesh. I hope the host will allow me to start our session, session number 413. Please. Dr. Haktikur Rahman In our introduction, we like to talk about celebrating 20 years of WSIS, which is a milestone in advancing the information society, recognizing the ongoing digital divide that still leaves billions of blind. This presentation explores inclusive, ethical and sustainable ICT policies to bridge these divides and shape a fairer digital future. As I told you with me, I am Dr. Haktikur Rahman, representing International Standard University, Bangladesh, and with me, Dr. Anujit Kumar Dutta, City University, Bangladesh. Recording in progress. Good morning again. Let me introduce again myself for the session 413. I am Dr. Haktikur Rahman, representing International Standard University, Bangladesh, and Dr. Anujit Kumar Dutta, City University, Bangladesh. Our title is Bridging the Digital Divide, Inclusive ICT Policies for Sustainable Development. This session will try to foster a critical dialogue on the urgent need to design, implement and monitor ICT policies that leave no one behind. For example, from India’s Digital India, Kenya’s Community Networks, the EU AI Act, and Rwanda’s Green ICT Strategy, this session will highlight best practices and offer policy recommendations to ensure that digital transformation is inclusive, ethical and sustainable. As introduction, we would like to say that we are celebrating 20 years of WSIS, which is a milestone in advancing the information society, and it recognizes the ongoing digital divide that still leaves billions of clients. And this presentation explores inclusion, ethical and sustainable ICT policies to bridge this divide and shape a fairer future. So why this matters? We are critical about the digital divide because over 2.6 billion people still remain offline, according to a study by ITU in 2024. And affordability, access to affordable internet is still out of reach for many. At the same time, literacy, one in four lack basic digital skills, limiting meaningful participation, and a sustainable digital future demands inclusive and right-based policies. So there are policy gaps, we like to point out. Lack of inclusivity, policies often overlook marginalized groups, and ethics in emerging tech, rapid AI and IoT deployment is happening across the globe without adequate safeguards and fragmented approaches. Sometimes some national and regional policies often lack coordination, leaving gaps in global governance. In the meantime, I think I should share my screen. Let me see. We are talking about mostly three pillars of our view. These are inclusion, ethics, and sustainability. Inclusion is the universal connectivity and meaningful access. Ethics, we call it human rights and accountability in tech. And sustainability, it should be the green ICT and equitable growth. The pillar one, inclusion or inclusivity, trust in the ICT framework. We research that universal connectivity is the past. Affordable broadband and community networks, large-scale solutions are there. And local content and multilingual tech to empower communities with relevant information in their languages. And capacity building, digital literacy, gender-sensitive programs, and skill training. Examples, we collected two successful examples. One is India’s Digital India, which is giving rural connectivity and governance at the grassroots. And Kenya’s Community Networks, which is bridging access in the underserved areas. Pillar two, ethics-centered digital governance. This is the second pillar of our three pillars. Data rights and privacy, people-first data governance, it should be. And transparent AI, which should be explainable, accountable, and bias our systems. And right-based design, embedding human rights and equity in technology deployment. For example, we researched and pointed out two examples, which are EU AI Act, EU Artificial Intelligence Act, working to enforce accountability and transparency. And at the same time, UNESCO AI Ethics is also working towards global guidance on ethical AI development. Now I’ll talk about the pillar three, which is sustainability and equity intake. At first comes the green ICT, energy-efficient infrastructure, we should have energy-efficient infrastructure, and we should have a growth in e-waste management system. At the same time, we need a human capital investment, empowering digital skills and local tenants, and we need a public-private people partnership model to share benefits equitably. For example, Rwanda’s green ICT service is working to reduce e-waste and promoting eco-design. Estonia’s e-residency is working towards digital transformation with inclusivity at its core. We collected and researched several policy recommendations towards visiting the digital divide and to make inclusive ICT policies for sustainable development. They are for fostering multi-stakeholder collaboration across sectors, embed human rights and ethics in design, deployment, and evolution, support innovations and boxes for safe environment, and develop regional and global frameworks to align policies and share best practices, integrate gender, youth, and marginalized voices. So there are some calls to action. What are these? These are let’s go create inclusive, ethical, and sustainable ICT ecosystems, build partnerships that prioritize solidarity over silos, mainstream ethics, and inclusion in every digital policy. So let us work together, and in this way, we can bridge digital divides, and we can bridge, we can, but at the same time, we can empower communities. Of course, there will be, and there are some challenges and risks. There are unintended consequences, such as widening the divide and digital colonialism, bias and discrimination that we are a little bit worried about, and this is an important challenge. We need to avoid it, and in data algorithm, there are algorithm bias, and there could be some discrimination, and in terms of surveillance and privacy needs, there may be abuse of digital technologies. In terms of environmental impact, there are e-waste management and energy-intensive tech. So these are, and at the last but not least, the resistance to change. The policy inertia and vested interests. So these are the five challenges and risks that we have found in our research. At the conclusion, I like to highlight digital inclusion. So everyone, everywhere, are meaningfully connected. It should be ethical in terms of technology. So the policy should be people-centered, right-based, transparent, and at the same time, it should be sustainable ICT, like green ICT, equitable, and future-proof. So let us work together, let’s harness technology to empower communities and build a better future. At this moment, to attend some of our local problems and points, I invite Dr. Dutta to take the floor, and I am stopping my share. I will start my sharing again. Dr. Dutta, you can join the session as our co-organizer, and welcome Dr. Dutta. Thank you, Professor. I want to share a screen, and I am to…

Ranojit Kumar Dutta: Okay. We have three three plan inclusion and ICT frameworks and local content. I want to talk about the local content in a Bangladesh, it’s a is a located in a South Asia and covering on luck 48,460 square kilometers, this is the area of Bangladesh, and it’s a population is more than 173 million and it’s a location in the South Asian and a regular it’s a density per square kilometer 1333 and urban area living 42% and globally it’s a ranking eight and per capita 3.8 GDP. So our internet access and reason by Bangladesh in 2024, more than 2092% in urban area and rural area, less than 50% or 58% ICT infrastructure is scored by reason in Bangladesh. In Bangladesh, more than 92% in Dhaka infrastructure is scored, score is also a key parameter used in ICT infrastructure, internet penetration rate, broadband subscription and density mobile network coverage, electricity access, number of public ICT facilities, and etc. The digital literacy rate by age group in Bangladesh is group is 15 to 2020 is more used in 72% and more than 45 years is group less use is 31% gender gap in internet use in Bangladesh urban area 72% male and female 58% rural area 61% and female 38% national 67% and female 40 47% student internet access at home by region in Dhaka 82% and Chittagong 76% and less around poor is 41% female enrollment in ICT related higher education in 2019 80% and then later increases 2020 22% and now 2024 38% gradually increases in female enrollment in ICT related higher education. The broadband penetration in Bangladesh has grown rapidly 5% to 86% 5% in 2010 and now is more than 86%. Penetration of participation of women in ICT workforce by sector software development 50% network and and IT support 22%, admin and HR, ICT 48% and others cyber security 10%. Barrier to women ICT participation, lack of digital literacy and social norms restriction 36%, high cost of device and internet 52%, limited female role model 21%, youth participation in freelancing digital work, male urban 38%, female 22%, male 22%, 28%, ICT sector employment growth in Bangladesh from 2018 to 2024, 2022 ICT related job 1,65,000 and now 2024 3,10,000 ICT contribution to ICT GDP in 2015 1.2% but now is 3.6%. Barrier to ICT division employment in Bangladesh, lack of advanced skill 46% and poor internet infrastructure 39%, language and communication gap 24%, lack of awareness 28%. Expansion of ICT infrastructure in Bangladesh, broadband coverage 51% into 2022 and 2024 78%. Number of growth of tech park and innovation hub, 2022 number of tech park 5 and active innovation hub 8 but 2024 18 and number of tech innovation hub 25. Digital literacy by geographical location urban 74% and semi-urban 55% and rural 39%. Smart device adaptation and measure Bangladesh cities, Dhaka is the capital so it’s a more adaptation 76% and Chittagong 68%, less CILIT 45%. Wi-Fi and ICT infrastructure by cities, urban 71% and pre-urban 42%, rural town 21%. The e-government adaptation and Bangladesh, so Dhaka is 92% and Borishal 60%. Growth in learning using user in Bangladesh, in 2015 1.2 million and 2024 11.5 million approximately. The key ICT application for development in Bangladesh, ICT solution governance, e-services portal and outcome achieved faster services delivery, reduced corruption, education digital classroom, remote access our rural and urban students. Health, telemedicine platforms and affordable remote consulting. Regional e-services penetration, Dhaka e-government governance 92%, e-learning 90%, e-health 88%, Polna 74%, e-learning 70% and e-health 65%. Then less CILIT 65% and 60% e-learning and e-health 58%. Multilingual digital platform access by region, Dhaka 92% and Borishal 69%, 59%. Cultural representation in digital media platform, new entertainment 60% and news 70% and indigenous 5% and 15%. Availability of government services in local language, birth registration, tax services, education portal, e-health and land recorded also available but indigenous language is partial. Awareness of ethical and ICT practices by digital literacy level, a low literacy is 28% and moderate 62% and high literacy 88%. Role of media and channels spreading digital ethics awareness, social media 38%, television 5%, online news portal 20% and community radio 10%, print media 10%. So this is the first part, first pillar inclusion of ICT framework and local content. And we have some barriers, poor infrastructure, high cost device and rural or urban gap, a digital skill, low digital literacy, weak education and language gap, lack of training and centers. Number two, pillar two, ethics concepting digital and governance data rights to privacy. Public awareness of data privacy right, EU region 82%, USA 70%, Rwanda 53%, Kenya 47%, Bangladesh 41%. Comparison between Bangladesh and other states, other countries. AI policy transparency index by country, EU 88% and USA 75% and Kenya 62% and Rwanda 58% and Bangladesh 45%.

Hakikur Rahman: Global trades in ethical AI policy adaptation. In 2018, 26% six country, 2020, 41 country and 2022, 58 countries and 2024, 76 countries in global trade ethical AI policy adaptation. Key data protection laws and rules and regulation, laws and regulation. Country, EU national law exist, yes. GDPR, yes. And Bangladesh also draft stage and GDPR, no. And enforcement strength is weak. Then other countries. Global statistics on data privacy awareness, EU 85%, Europe data rights, privacy policies, EU 42%, trust digital services, 58%. Asia Pacific 60% and rate privacy policies, 24% and trust digital services 75%. Key principles in ethics and constitutive digital governance, transparency, a clear disclosure of how data and algorithm functions, and privacy protection and human overrides. Major framework and their focus area. UNESCO AI ethics, human rights, inclusivity, environmental sustainability, and EU AI Act, European Union, risk-based regulation, transparency-based and harmful AI. Pillar three, sustainability and equity intake. EU generation and disposal. Bangladesh, EU has 600 kiloton, recycled 3% and informal handing 80%. Kenya, 180 and recycled 60%. And EU advanced 9,500 and recycled 42%. US collection and recycle. Bangladesh 12% and recycled 3%. Kenya 15% and recycled 6%. Rwanda 10% and recycled 4%. Nepal 8% and recycled 2%. And EU 60% collected and recycled 42%. Sustainability, ICT sector, carbon emission by region, North America, maximum Asia Pacific 45%, and North America 12% and European Union 80% of global ICT carbon emission, impacting climate change, CO2, carbon dioxide output in 2024. US generation and per capita. US per capita rising globally, highest in Europe and then America and Asia after Oceania and others, rest of the world. Green ICT strategies in Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Kenya, and Rwanda. Nepal is medium and solar telecom high and US policy medium and digital skill program high and urban private partnership medium. Say Bangladesh high, energy efficient data high and solar telecom hours is medium, US policy medium and digital skill program high. This is the radar figure illustrate the infrastructure availability region in Bangladesh. Urban area how the highest availability in 95% internet access and 98% mobile coverage. Semi-urban region follow with the moderate level. 35% projected ICT investment allocation in 2025. 35% of projected funding in targeted at a rural network with a significant investment also planned for digital education and sustainable infrastructure. Renewable energy use in ICT infrastructure in Bangladesh, grid electricity 60%, solar power 28%, wind and other renewable 7% and diesel backup 5%. US generation by recycle in Bangladesh, mobile devices 12,000, US generated 12,000 ton, recycled 2,200 ton, computer 9,000 and television 6,000 and recycled 1,200. Approximately, green ICT policies and initiative in Bangladesh, green data center guideline, BCC, Bangladesh Computer Council, reduce energy use in Sarbar, ongoing solar town program, solar tower program, BRTC, power telecom towers, solar energy expanded, and US management rules, department of environmental regulate electronic waste disposal and enforced. Our digital inclusion, ethics, technology, and sustainable ICT are essential pillar for the just and resilient digital society. Together, we must create a future where every community is improved through safe, inclusive, and sustainable digital solutions. Thank you, Dr. Dutta. Thank you, Dr. Dutta. Let me say the closing words. I will share my, you can stop sharing your screen. I will share my screen and give thanks to all the participants. I am sharing my screen. Please stop your sharing. Okay. Thank you, sir. You are most welcome. So, finally, we are here. We are the concluding. But before that, I must thank Ms. Kitanjali, Mr. Ruth, and the other team member working very hard for the long session, for a long time. And we congratulate them at the same time to have this successful and beneficial session for the global community, and especially for us, the marginalized community. I am here, Dr. Hakikuraman, and with me, Dr. Ranajit Kumar Dutta. I am from International Standard University, and Dr. Dutta is from City University, Bangladesh. We thank you very much. I appreciate our host to provide us this opportunity to have this session successfully and in coordination. Thank you very much. Bye-bye. You may stop the recording. Thank you, sir. Sir, take a picture. You can. Yes. Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. I think we can leave. They are recording still.

Agreement points

Digital divide requires comprehensive policy framework addressing multiple dimensions

Speakers

– Hakikur Rahman
– Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Arguments

Three-pillar approach needed: inclusion (universal connectivity), ethics (human rights in tech), and sustainability (green ICT)

Internet access shows significant urban-rural divide: 92% in urban areas vs 58% in rural areas

Gender gap in internet usage exists across all regions, with national averages of 67% for males and 47% for females

Summary

Both speakers agree that digital divide is a multi-faceted problem requiring systematic approaches that address geographic, gender, and socioeconomic disparities through comprehensive policy frameworks

Topics

Development | Human rights | Infrastructure

Significant barriers exist preventing meaningful digital participation

Speakers

– Hakikur Rahman
– Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Arguments

Over 2.6 billion people remain offline globally, with affordability and digital literacy being major barriers

Digital literacy varies significantly by age group: 72% for 15-20 age group vs 31% for 45+ age group

Barriers to ICT employment include lack of advanced skills (46%) and poor internet infrastructure (39%)

Summary

Both speakers identify that digital literacy gaps, affordability issues, and infrastructure limitations are major obstacles to digital inclusion, requiring targeted interventions

Topics

Development | Digital access | Capacity development

Need for ethical governance and privacy protection in digital transformation

Speakers

– Hakikur Rahman
– Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Arguments

Policy gaps exist due to lack of inclusivity, inadequate safeguards for emerging technologies, and fragmented approaches

Bangladesh lags behind in data privacy awareness (41%) compared to EU (82%) and USA (70%)

AI policy transparency index shows Bangladesh at 45% compared to EU’s 88%

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the critical need for stronger ethical frameworks, data privacy protection, and transparent AI governance to ensure responsible digital development

Topics

Human rights | Privacy and data protection | Legal and regulatory

Environmental sustainability must be integrated into ICT development

Speakers

– Hakikur Rahman
– Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Arguments

Five major challenges identified: unintended consequences, bias and discrimination, surveillance and privacy issues, environmental impact, and resistance to change

Bangladesh generates 600 kilotons of e-waste with only 3% recycling rate and 80% informal handling

Green ICT initiatives include solar tower programs and e-waste management regulations

Summary

Both speakers recognize environmental impact as a critical concern in ICT development, highlighting the need for green ICT strategies and proper e-waste management

Topics

Development | E-waste | Sustainable development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for inclusive approaches that prioritize marginalized groups, particularly women and youth, in digital policy development and implementation

Speakers

– Hakikur Rahman
– Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder collaboration and human rights embedding in technology design are essential

Female enrollment in ICT-related higher education has increased from 22% in 2020 to 38% in 2024

Topics

Human rights | Gender rights online | Development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of preventing digital technologies from reproducing existing inequalities and the growing global recognition of need for ethical AI governance

Speakers

– Hakikur Rahman
– Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Arguments

Need to avoid digital colonialism and algorithm bias while ensuring meaningful participation for marginalized communities

Global trend shows increasing adoption of ethical AI policies from 26 countries in 2018 to 76 countries in 2024

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Data governance

Unexpected consensus

Strong emphasis on environmental sustainability in ICT development

Speakers

– Hakikur Rahman
– Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Arguments

Three-pillar approach needed: inclusion (universal connectivity), ethics (human rights in tech), and sustainability (green ICT)

Renewable energy use in ICT infrastructure includes 60% grid electricity, 28% solar power, and 7% wind/other renewables

Explanation

While the session focused on digital divide and ICT policies, both speakers unexpectedly gave significant attention to environmental sustainability, treating it as equally important to access and ethics concerns

Topics

Development | Sustainable development | Infrastructure

Detailed focus on gender disparities across all aspects of digital participation

Speakers

– Hakikur Rahman
– Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder collaboration and human rights embedding in technology design are essential

Gender gap in internet usage exists across all regions, with national averages of 67% for males and 47% for females

Explanation

Both speakers consistently highlighted gender gaps across internet access, digital literacy, ICT education, and workforce participation, showing unexpected comprehensive focus on gender equality as central to digital inclusion

Topics

Human rights | Gender rights online | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the multi-dimensional nature of digital divide challenges, the need for comprehensive policy frameworks addressing inclusion, ethics, and sustainability, and the importance of protecting marginalized groups while ensuring environmental responsibility

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives – Rahman provided theoretical framework and global context while Dutta offered detailed empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Their agreement on core principles and shared emphasis on holistic approaches suggests strong foundation for collaborative policy development and implementation in digital inclusion initiatives.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

No significant disagreements were identified between the speakers. Both Dr. Hakikur Rahman and Dr. Ranojit Kumar Dutta presented complementary perspectives on bridging the digital divide through inclusive ICT policies.

Disagreement level

Minimal to no disagreement. The speakers operated in a collaborative framework where Dr. Rahman presented the theoretical policy framework and Dr. Dutta provided supporting empirical evidence from Bangladesh. This high level of agreement suggests strong consensus on the fundamental approaches to addressing digital divide issues, though it may also indicate limited critical examination of alternative policy approaches or potential trade-offs in implementation strategies.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for inclusive approaches that prioritize marginalized groups, particularly women and youth, in digital policy development and implementation

Speakers

– Hakikur Rahman
– Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder collaboration and human rights embedding in technology design are essential

Female enrollment in ICT-related higher education has increased from 22% in 2020 to 38% in 2024

Topics

Human rights | Gender rights online | Development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of preventing digital technologies from reproducing existing inequalities and the growing global recognition of need for ethical AI governance

Speakers

– Hakikur Rahman
– Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Arguments

Need to avoid digital colonialism and algorithm bias while ensuring meaningful participation for marginalized communities

Global trend shows increasing adoption of ethical AI policies from 26 countries in 2018 to 76 countries in 2024

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Data governance

Key takeaways

Digital divide remains a critical global challenge with 2.6 billion people still offline, requiring urgent policy intervention through a three-pillar framework of inclusion, ethics, and sustainability

Bangladesh demonstrates significant digital infrastructure growth but faces persistent urban-rural and gender gaps in access and participation

Successful examples exist globally (India’s Digital India, Kenya’s Community Networks, EU AI Act, Rwanda’s Green ICT Strategy) that can serve as models for inclusive ICT policies

Multi-stakeholder collaboration and human rights-centered approach are essential for bridging digital divides effectively

Environmental sustainability through green ICT practices and proper e-waste management is crucial for long-term digital development

Digital literacy and skills development programs must be tailored to different demographic groups to ensure meaningful participation

Data privacy awareness and ethical AI governance frameworks need strengthening, particularly in developing countries like Bangladesh

Resolutions and action items

Foster multi-stakeholder collaboration across sectors for inclusive ICT policy development

Embed human rights and ethics in technology design, deployment, and evolution processes

Support innovation sandboxes to create safe environments for testing new technologies

Develop regional and global frameworks to align policies and share best practices

Integrate gender, youth, and marginalized voices into digital policy formulation

Mainstream ethics and inclusion in every digital policy initiative

Build partnerships that prioritize solidarity over silos in addressing digital divides

Unresolved issues

Specific implementation mechanisms for bridging the urban-rural digital divide in Bangladesh and similar developing countries

Concrete strategies to address the 46% skills gap barrier in ICT employment

Detailed approaches to improve Bangladesh’s low data privacy awareness (41%) and AI policy transparency (45%)

Specific solutions for improving e-waste recycling rates from the current 3% in Bangladesh

Methods to overcome policy inertia and vested interests that resist change

Strategies to prevent digital colonialism while promoting inclusive technology adoption

Approaches to ensure meaningful participation of marginalized communities beyond basic connectivity

Suggested compromises

Public-private-people partnership models to share benefits equitably while leveraging different sector strengths

Gradual implementation of green ICT strategies balancing environmental concerns with development needs

Phased approach to digital literacy programs targeting different age groups and skill levels

Regional coordination frameworks that respect national sovereignty while promoting global best practices

Flexible policy frameworks that can adapt to rapid technological changes while maintaining ethical standards

Over 2.6 billion people still remain offline, according to a study by ITU in 2024. And affordability, access to affordable internet is still out of reach for many. At the same time, literacy, one in four lack basic digital skills, limiting meaningful participation

Speaker

Dr. Hakikur Rahman

Reason

This comment is insightful because it quantifies the scale of the digital divide with concrete statistics, moving beyond abstract concepts to demonstrate the real magnitude of global digital inequality. It establishes the urgency and scope of the problem by highlighting both access and skills barriers.

Impact

This foundational statement set the tone for the entire presentation by establishing the critical need for their three-pillar framework. It provided the statistical foundation that justified their subsequent policy recommendations and created a sense of urgency that carried through the discussion.

There are unintended consequences, such as widening the divide and digital colonialism, bias and discrimination… algorithm bias… surveillance and privacy needs… environmental impact… resistance to change

Speaker

Dr. Hakikur Rahman

Reason

This is particularly thought-provoking because it acknowledges that ICT policies intended to bridge divides can actually create new forms of inequality and exploitation. The mention of ‘digital colonialism’ introduces a critical perspective on how technology deployment can perpetuate power imbalances rather than eliminate them.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from purely optimistic policy solutions to a more nuanced understanding of the complexities and potential negative consequences of digital transformation. It added critical depth to the conversation by acknowledging that good intentions don’t automatically lead to positive outcomes.

Gender gap in internet use in Bangladesh urban area 72% male and female 58% rural area 61% and female 38% national 67% and female 40 47%

Speaker

Dr. Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Reason

These specific statistics are insightful because they reveal the intersectional nature of digital divides – showing how gender, geography, and socioeconomic factors compound to create multiple layers of exclusion. The data demonstrates that digital inequality isn’t uniform but varies significantly across different demographic groups.

Impact

This granular data provided concrete evidence for the theoretical frameworks discussed earlier, moving the conversation from abstract policy concepts to specific, measurable inequalities. It demonstrated the complexity of implementing inclusive ICT policies when different groups face vastly different barriers.

Cultural representation in digital media platform, new entertainment 60% and news 70% and indigenous 5% and 15%

Speaker

Dr. Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Reason

This statistic is particularly thought-provoking because it reveals how digital inclusion isn’t just about access to technology, but about whose voices and cultures are represented in digital spaces. The stark contrast between mainstream content (60-70%) and indigenous representation (5-15%) highlights cultural marginalization in digital transformation.

Impact

This comment deepened the discussion by introducing the concept that true digital inclusion requires not just technical access but cultural representation and relevance. It expanded the conversation beyond infrastructure and skills to include questions of cultural equity and digital sovereignty.

Overall assessment

The key comments shaped this discussion by progressively building a comprehensive understanding of digital divides – starting with broad statistical foundations, moving through specific demographic data, acknowledging potential negative consequences, and ultimately revealing the cultural dimensions of digital inequality. The speakers effectively used concrete data to support their theoretical framework, creating a presentation that was both academically rigorous and practically grounded. However, the discussion remained largely one-directional as a presentation format, limiting the potential for interactive dialogue that might have further developed these insights. The most impactful aspect was how the comments collectively demonstrated that bridging digital divides requires addressing not just technical barriers, but also social, economic, cultural, and ethical dimensions of technology deployment.

How can policies better address the needs of marginalized groups who are often overlooked in ICT policy development?

Speaker

Dr. Hakikur Rahman

Explanation

This was identified as a critical policy gap where policies often overlook marginalized groups, requiring further research on inclusive policy design

What adequate safeguards are needed for rapid AI and IoT deployment globally?

Speaker

Dr. Hakikur Rahman

Explanation

The presentation highlighted that rapid AI and IoT deployment is happening without adequate safeguards, indicating need for research on appropriate regulatory frameworks

How can national and regional policies be better coordinated to address gaps in global governance?

Speaker

Dr. Hakikur Rahman

Explanation

Fragmented approaches and lack of coordination between policies was identified as a major challenge requiring solutions

What are the most effective strategies to prevent digital colonialism and avoid widening the digital divide?

Speaker

Dr. Hakikur Rahman

Explanation

This was mentioned as an unintended consequence and challenge that needs to be researched and addressed

How can algorithm bias and discrimination in data systems be effectively eliminated?

Speaker

Dr. Hakikur Rahman

Explanation

Algorithm bias was identified as a significant challenge requiring further research on mitigation strategies

What are the best practices for e-waste management and reducing energy-intensive technology impacts?

Speaker

Dr. Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Explanation

Environmental impact through e-waste and energy consumption was presented as a major sustainability challenge requiring research solutions

How can policy inertia and vested interests resistance to change be overcome?

Speaker

Dr. Hakikur Rahman

Explanation

This was identified as one of the five key challenges that requires research on change management strategies

What specific interventions can increase women’s participation in ICT workforce beyond the current levels shown in Bangladesh?

Speaker

Dr. Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Explanation

The data showed varying levels of women participation across ICT sectors, indicating need for targeted research on increasing participation

How can indigenous language support be expanded from partial to full availability in government digital services?

Speaker

Dr. Ranojit Kumar Dutta

Explanation

The presentation showed indigenous language support is only partial in government services, requiring research on expansion strategies

Summary

This discussion focused on information society challenges and solutions during times of risk, examining how digital technologies and collaborative approaches can enhance resilience during crises and disasters. The session was chaired by Horst Kremers and Professor Ke Gong, emphasizing the UN’s all-of-society principle that calls for broad cooperation among public and private sectors, civil society, academia, and other stakeholders in disaster risk reduction.

The Singapore team presented their DRIVE framework (Digital Resilience Indicators for Veritable Empowerment), which conceptualizes digital resilience as a socio-ecological process rather than just individual technical skills. Their research revealed that digital resilience emerges from the dynamic interplay between individuals and their social contexts, including family, community, and broader societal support systems. The framework maps drivers of digital resilience across individual, family, community, and societal levels, incorporating both personal disposition and digital citizenship components.

Turkish researchers presented their analysis of visual content shared on social media during the 2023 earthquakes, examining how 54,859 earthquake-related images facilitated digital solidarity and crisis communication. Their findings highlighted the critical importance of maintaining open communication channels during disasters, as telecommunication infrastructure was severely disrupted for the first two days following the earthquake.

Chinese case studies demonstrated how tech companies like Tencent have developed comprehensive digital disaster relief systems, including online philanthropic platforms and AI-powered knowledge bases for disaster preparedness. These initiatives have facilitated millions of donations and coordinated thousands of rescues through integrated digital platforms.

The discussion also addressed the risks of conflict in social media environments and proposed pro-social platform design solutions, including bridging systems that promote consensual content across political divides. Participants emphasized the need for sustained international collaboration and comprehensive information management systems that serve all stakeholders in disaster risk reduction, extending beyond immediate response to include preparation and long-term recovery phases.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Resilience Framework Development**: The Singapore team presented their DRIVE (Digital Resilience Indicators for Veritable Empowerment) framework, which conceptualizes digital resilience as a socio-ecological process involving individual, family, community, and societal levels rather than just individual technical skills.

– **Visual Communication During Crisis**: Turkish researchers analyzed how visual content shared on social media (particularly X/Twitter) during the 2023 earthquake served as a tool for digital solidarity and crisis communication, with plans to develop policy recommendations for improved disaster response.

– **All-of-Society Information Management**: Discussion of the complex information flows needed across multiple stakeholders (government, NGOs, private sector, civil society) during disasters, emphasizing the need for comprehensive interoperability and just-in-time information delivery in all phases of disaster management.

– **Technology-Enabled Disaster Response**: Examination of how major tech companies (like Tencent in China) are developing integrated digital platforms for disaster relief, including donation systems, real-time coordination tools, and AI-powered knowledge bases for community-driven disaster support.

– **Pro-Social Platform Design**: Exploration of how social media platforms can be redesigned to reduce conflict and promote social cohesion through bridging systems, balanced content recommendation, and features that facilitate cross-political dialogue and understanding.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine how information society can effectively respond to and manage various types of risks and crises. The session focused on developing frameworks, tools, and approaches for building digital resilience across different levels of society, from individual users to entire communities and nations. The goal was to foster collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to create more inclusive, proactive, and sustainable approaches to crisis management in our increasingly digital world.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently academic and collaborative tone throughout. It was professional and research-focused, with presenters sharing ongoing work and findings in a constructive manner. The tone was forward-looking and solution-oriented, emphasizing the need for continued cooperation and knowledge sharing. The session concluded on an encouraging note, with calls for sustained collaboration and a shared commitment to building resilient information societies that “leave no one behind.”

Speakers

– **Horst Kremers**: Session chair, working in environmental affairs and disaster risk reduction since Agenda 21/Rio Declaration, involved with UNDRR Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism

– **Ke Gong**: Professor at the Institute of the World Federation of Engineers, session co-chair

– **Audrey Yue**: Provost, chair professor of media, culture, and critical theory, and deputy director at the NUS Center for Trusted Internet and Community at the National University of Singapore

– **Renae Loh**: Colleague of Audrey Yue working on the DRIVE (Digital Resilience Indicators for Veritable Empowerment) project

– **Jun Yu**: Colleague participating online in the DRIVE project presentation

– **Bengu Sezer**: Lecturer at Mersin University in Turkey, graduated from Mersin University Department of English Linguistics, completed MA and PhD at Mersin University Institute of Social Sciences, working as lecturer since 2006, specializes in new media and social media

– **Zhan Zhang**: Researcher presenting a case study on Tencent’s digital initiatives and CSR efforts in disaster resilience (presented via recorded presentation while traveling)

– **Emillie de Keulenaar**: Postdoctoral researcher at University of Copenhagen, researcher at University of Amsterdam’s Digital Methods Initiative and Open Intelligence Lab, consultant of UNDPPA’s Innovation Cell, specializes in politics of speech moderation and algorithmic systems

**Additional speakers:**

– **Giacomo Mazzone**: Audience member who asked questions, appears to collaborate with Horst Kremers on risk journalism and media activities

# Information Society in Times of Risk: Discussion Summary

## Introduction and Context

This academic session was chaired by Horst Kremers, who has been working since the Agenda 21/Rio Declaration and is involved with the UNDRR Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism, and Professor Ke Gong from the Institute of the World Federation of Engineers. The discussion examined challenges and solutions for information society during times of crisis and disaster, bringing together international researchers and practitioners to explore how digital technologies and collaborative approaches can enhance societal resilience.

## The DRIVE Framework: Digital Resilience Indicators for Veritable Empowerment

### Theoretical Foundation

The Singapore research team, led by Audrey Yue (Provost and chair professor of media, culture, and critical theory at NUS), presented their DRIVE framework. Yue explained that their research challenges existing conceptualizations of digital resilience by moving beyond individual technical skills to embrace a socio-ecological understanding.

“Digital resilience should be understood as a socio-ecological process shaped by users’ disposition, resources, and environments rather than just individual skills,” Yue stated. The framework defines digital resilience as “the capability of individuals to act, learn, understand, and make informed choices when faced with technological failures, changes, disruption, or challenges.”

### Framework Structure

Renae Loh, working on the DRIVE project, explained how their research revealed that digital resilience emerges from dynamic interplay between individuals and their social contexts. The framework maps drivers across individual, family, community, and societal levels, with a grid structure incorporating both horizontal and vertical elements.

The framework includes personal disposition and digital citizenship components that interact across all levels to create comprehensive resilience capacity.

### Digital Citizenship Dimension

Jun Yu, participating online in the DRIVE project presentation, provided a key insight: “Digital resilience isn’t just about personal safety or protection. It is also about contributing to a healthier digital society. This adds a normative dimension that digital resilience becomes a shared responsibility and a core component of what it means to be a digital citizen in the 21st century.”

Yu clarified that “digital resilience, despite the term digital, isn’t actually just about technical or digital know-how or avoiding the digital harms and risk. It’s more broadly about maintaining one’s activities and goals, even when digital systems and tools falter.”

## Crisis Communication Through Visual Documentation: Turkey Earthquake Case Study

### Research Overview

Bengu Sezer, a lecturer at Mersin University specializing in new media and social media, presented research on visual content shared during the 2023 earthquakes in Turkey. Her three-year project, funded by TÜBİTAK with Dr. Kıyam as coordinator and six scholarship holders, analyzed 54,859 earthquake-related images shared on social media platforms, particularly X (formerly Twitter).

The research team developed an annotation interface to systematically analyze the visual content, with disagreement resolution processes to ensure accuracy. Sezer’s analysis revealed how visual communication facilitated digital solidarity and crisis coordination during the disaster.

### Communication Infrastructure Challenges

A critical finding was the severe disruption of telecommunication infrastructure during the first two days following the earthquake. “We think the internet structure should be strengthened. There should be mobile internet providers. As the communication was blocked, that was a real problem in the very first days,” Sezer explained.

Sezer revealed how researchers had to take personal initiative to capture crucial data: “We couldn’t have done the rest of it without them. But the very first steps were taken by us personally.” This highlighted gaps between academic research capabilities and institutional disaster response frameworks.

### Timeline and Policy Goals

The comprehensive analysis is expected to be completed by October 2025, with findings available by the end of 2026. The research team aims to develop policy recommendations for governments and NGOs based on their systematic analysis of crisis-related visuals.

## Technology-Enabled Disaster Response: The Chinese Experience

### Integrated Digital Platforms

Zhan Zhang, presenting via pre-recorded presentation while traveling, analyzed how major technology companies in China, particularly Tencent, have developed comprehensive digital disaster relief systems. She referenced the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, which killed nearly 70,000 people and displaced millions, as a catalyst for these developments.

Zhang highlighted Tencent’s 9i Gaming Day, which reached 60 million participants and raised 500 million dollars in donations, demonstrating the potential for digital platforms to mobilize massive philanthropic responses. The approach includes online philanthropic platforms, real-time coordination tools, AI-powered knowledge bases, and gaming platform integration.

### WeChat Integration and Recent Developments

Zhang described how WeChat’s integration enables comprehensive disaster response coordination. She mentioned the 2021 Zhengzhou floods as an example of effective digital coordination, and noted that digital relief vouchers through WeChat Pay were introduced in 2023 to streamline aid distribution.

### AI Limitations

Despite optimism about digital innovation, Zhang provided a cautious assessment of artificial intelligence: “AI applications in disaster management are still in early development stages with limited real-time operational integration.” This restraint about AI’s current limitations provided important grounding for realistic expectations about technological capabilities.

## All-of-Society Information Management

### Comprehensive Interoperability Requirements

Horst Kremers, drawing on his extensive experience with the UNDRR Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism, articulated complex information management challenges underlying effective disaster response. He emphasized that “comprehensive interoperability is required for information flows across all disaster management phases involving multiple stakeholder groups.”

Kremers outlined the complexity of cross-organizational, cross-border information flows required for effective decision support, involving coordination among emergency services, public administration, private sector organizations, civil society, international agencies, and academic institutions.

### Just-in-Time Information Delivery

Kremers articulated specific temporal requirements for information management: “just in time in a definite predefined way of timestamp and periodicity every two minutes, every two hours, every two days.” This systematic approach moves beyond general coordination calls to articulate precise, structured information flow requirements across multiple organizational levels and timeframes.

### Framework Development for 2030+

Looking toward future policy development, Kremers advocated for incorporating information society requirements into the post-2030 disaster risk reduction framework. He made available QR codes and PDF downloads for participants and called for continued international working group collaboration.

## Platform Design and Social Cohesion

### Risks of Conflict in Digital Environments

Emillie de Keulenaar, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Copenhagen with expertise in speech moderation and algorithmic systems, examined how information systems themselves can generate societal risks. Rather than focusing on external disasters, de Keulenaar examined the “probability and risk of conflict in social media environments.”

“The lingering risk in that sense is the possibility that conflict might emerge… from the use of social media,” de Keulenaar explained. “These forms of conflict that it produces, from pluralistic ignorance to fragmentation to entrenchment, have a number of spiralling effects… all the way to offline conflict.”

She referenced examples including the Capitol Hill riots and conflicts over sustainability policies to illustrate how platform design decisions can either exacerbate or mitigate social tensions.

### Pro-Social Platform Design Solutions

To address platform-generated risks, de Keulenaar proposed pro-social platform design protocols including bridging systems that promote consensual content across political divides, balanced content recommendation algorithms, features facilitating cross-political dialogue, and multi-level governance approaches.

Rather than requiring complete platform redesign, de Keulenaar’s approach focuses on developing “bridging systems that can be plugged into existing social media platforms,” recognizing the entrenched nature of current platform ecosystems while providing pathways for incremental improvement.

## Key Areas of Agreement

### Multi-Level Approaches

The discussion revealed consensus around the need for multi-level, socio-ecological approaches to digital resilience. Ke Gong emphasized that “comprehensive socio-ecological approaches are needed for long-term empowerment in digital resilience,” supporting the Singapore team’s framework.

### Communication Infrastructure Resilience

Participants agreed on the critical importance of communication infrastructure resilience during disasters. This consensus emerged from different perspectives: Sezer’s emphasis on strengthening internet infrastructure, and Kremers’ comprehensive interoperability frameworks.

### Beneficiary-Centered Approaches

There was strong agreement on the requirement for beneficiary-centered technology solutions considering vulnerable groups. Zhang’s emphasis on “beneficiary-centered digital systems with attention to vulnerable groups” and Kremers’ advocacy for serving “all stakeholder groups” reflected this shared commitment.

## Implementation Challenges

### Operational Responsibility

Critical questions about operational implementation remained unresolved. Kremers’ questions about “who should be running your system after the project ends” and “how should the implementation be organized for ad hoc use in times of disaster” highlighted gaps between research feasibility studies and operational deployment.

### Technical Integration

The discussion identified technical challenges requiring further development: comprehensive interoperability standards, just-in-time information delivery mechanisms with quality guarantees, AI integration beyond current applications, and cross-platform integration for pro-social design features.

## Future Directions and Commitments

### International Working Group

The session concluded with Kremers’ call for establishing an international working group on “information society in times of risk” to continue collaboration beyond the immediate discussion. This working group would provide ongoing coordination among the diverse research teams and practitioners represented.

### Specific Deliverables

Participants committed to several deliverables: completion of the Turkey earthquake visual analysis by October 2025 with policy recommendations, development of policy recommendations addressing communication infrastructure gaps, creation of amendments for the 2030+ disaster risk reduction framework incorporating information society requirements, and maintenance of ongoing collaboration.

## Conclusion

Ke Gong’s closing remarks emphasized the importance of staying connected and exchanging ideas, practices, and research among participants. He stressed that “building resilient information society requires inclusive, proactive approaches grounded in solidarity across all stakeholder groups.”

The discussion successfully connected technical considerations about digital infrastructure and platform design to broader questions about social cohesion and civic responsibility. The commitment to sustained collaboration through an international working group and specific research deliverables provides mechanisms for maintaining momentum and achieving concrete outcomes.

The session established a foundation for addressing information society challenges during crises through multi-stakeholder coordination, socio-ecological approaches, and inclusive development, while identifying significant implementation challenges that require continued research and development efforts.

Horst Kremers: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, excellencies and distinguished participants. My name is Horst Kremers. I’m chairing this session together with Prof. Ke GONG from the Institute of the World Federation of Engineers. And this session has the topic of information society in times of risk. This has a, in the entrance of the session, I want to give a little bit an overview on the context of our work, and that is quite some years of activities in different fields, which aims to build a people-centric, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. In the context of an ever-changing world filled with various risks, this session focuses on the special demands that the information society faces during times of risk. These risks cover local, regional, national, cross-border, and global crises, as well as natural, technical, and humanitarian disasters, with special attention on highlighting demands, deficits, capabilities, and potential of actors and organizations. You already get the impression that there is a little bit of complexity behind that information scheme that we are talking about. United Nations’ all-of-society principle, which originated from the Agenda 21 in 1992, became a general principle starting from the data revolution activities of the United Nations in 2014, emphasizes the need for broad cooperation. The UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction further specifies the stakeholders such as women, children, youth, persons with disabilities, poor people, migrants, indigenous people, and so on, that should be involved in the design and implementation of policies, plans, and standards. It also calls for closer collaboration among the public and private sectors, civil society organizations, academia, scientific and research institutions, and encourages business to integrate disaster risk into their management practices. This session will cover contributions taking into account the special circumstances of information management in times of risk and the consequences for risk management, policies, anticipation, preparation, decision, and action in all phases of crisis and all types of disaster. Ladies and gentlemen, without further ado, I’d like to start with our first presentation. The presentation is by Professor Audrey Yu. Audrey Yu is a provost, chair, professor of media, culture, and critical theory, and deputy director at the NUS Center for Trusted Internet and Community at the National University of Singapore. You will have two presenters, and I will please introduce also, as appropriate, when you start the separate presentation. Thank you very much. Please take the floor. Okay.

Audrey Yue: Thanks, Horst, and thanks to the session, and thanks to everyone for coming here. It’s a pleasure to be part of this roundtable discussion. Today, we want to present our ongoing work, which is to develop an evaluation framework for digital resilience. So we call it DRIVE for short, and I am going to—we have six minutes to talk for our presentation, and there will be three of us, myself, Audrey, and my colleague, Jun, who is online, but he will be speaking, and Renee, who is here. So the three of us will take turns to speak, and today we talk about our work from a larger project. This is the larger project on digital information resilience, but today we want to present only our work package, where we identify drivers to support the digital resilience of users. We want to present our design of this framework, introduce digital resilience as a socio-ecological process shaped by users’ disposition, resources, and environments.

Renae Loh: Yes, thank you, Audrey. So we first sought to understand the current conceptualizations and operationalizations of digital resilience. This is done through a systematic review of peer-reviewed academic journal articles and grade literature, such as organizational reports and policy documents. So we gathered articles through basically keyword search, focusing on digital resilience, obviously, and related terms like digital skills, online safety, e-competences, just to name a few. So after a thorough screening and review process, we had a rich base of 68 academic articles and 31 pieces of grade literature, from which we would synthesize the very conceptualizations of digital resilience, identify key indicators, and current operationalizations. Now, on to the interesting part. From our review, we find that digital resilience is often conceptualized as an organizational capacity, focusing either on an organization’s information systems resilience or on employees’ and employers’ capacity to deal with digital disruptions. However, among the literature that does focus on individuals, the approach tends to center on personal skills and psychological capabilities, you know, what knowledge, attitudes, or behaviors individuals would need to develop in order to protect themselves and respond effectively in the face of digital challenges or threats. Now, this includes areas like digital literacy, coping strategies, and emotional regulation. More interestingly, our review also surfaced an emerging emphasis on the social-ecological approach, which recognizes that digital resilience is not just about individuals in isolation, but about the dynamic interplay between people and social formations and contexts, so like family, communities, and the broader society. It highlights the role of relationships, support structures, and the larger digital environment in driving resilience. Now, I’ll pass the time over to Jun, who is joining us online.

Jun Yu: Thank you very much, Renee, and I hope everyone can hear me properly. So, building on these foundations, yes, thank you. So, building on these foundations that Renee just discussed, our framework on digital resilience emphasizes that this isn’t just an individual trait. It is shaped by broader social, institutional, and technological contexts, and what does that mean? So, rather than seeing digital resilience in isolation, we would like to understand it as the capability of individuals to act and respond in relation to the systems and communities around them. For example, how someone copes with digital risks and harms is influenced not just by their own skills or awareness, but also by the support they receive from family and community, the policies in place, as well as the digital infrastructure available to them, of course. And importantly, we would like to bring this into dialogue with the concept of digital citizenship to highlight that digital resilience isn’t just about personal safety or protection. It is also about contributing to a healthier digital society. This adds a normative dimension that digital resilience becomes a shared responsibility and a core component of what it means to be a digital citizen in the 21st century. Next slide, please. Thank you. This approach informs our working definition of digital resilience as the capability of individuals to act, learn, understand, and make informed choices when faced with technological failures, changes, disruption, or challenges. So digital resilience, despite the term digital, isn’t actually just about technical or digital know-how or avoiding the digital harms and risk. It’s more broadly about maintaining one’s activities and goals, even when digital systems and tools falter. When facing a software failure, a new platform or app, or an unexpected online threat, resilience means responding thoughtfully and continuing to move forward. And we emphasize the four key capabilities, as you see in the presentation, to be able to anticipate and manage disruptions, to adapt to changing digital conditions, to recover in ways that foster growth, and to draw on support from families, peer networks, communities, institutions, including schools, of course, and wider social systems. So digital resilience in this view is as much collective as it is individual.

Audrey Yue: So our framework then is designed, as Jun mentioned, in a grid of horizontals and verticals, right? So at the vertical level, you will see the socio-ecological. So we map how different drivers of digital resilience are distributed across individual, family, community, and societal levels. So each level will contribute to a person’s ability to navigate digital disruptions. And then at the horizontal level you will see the drivers of digital resilience and we broke it down into comprising disposition and citizenship. So disposition then refers to habits, attitudes that we use to engage with technology in ways that are adaptive, critical, and ethically responsible. So then at the individual level you will see sort of indicators like personality, growth mindset, risk exposure, and informal learning. And then at the level of citizenship there are four domains on skills, competence, empowerment, and rights and responsibility. So here we talk about technical use, digital literacy, proactive coping, self-regulation, and ethical outlook. So more importantly, our grid cross-cuts the vertical and the horizontal. So if you look at the column on digital skills, for example, at the individual level is a bout technical use. And then you move down to the family, it’s about technical parenting. You move down to community, it’s about technology to foster social inclusion. And you move down to society, it’s about digital infrastructure provision and access. So to summarize then, our model develops digital resilience as a collective effort embedded in networks of relationships, systems, and shared values. So this, we believe, will provide a more dynamic understanding of what it means to be digitally resilient today. Thank you.

Horst Kremers: Yeah, thank you very much for this enlightening first presentation. I think there is a lot of topics you issued and showed. Are there questions from the audience here? Are there questions from the attending, virtually attending colleagues? Not to see here. I have a question on that one of the last slides was on the drive framework, socio-ecological levels with a table you showed. My question would be these requirements by society is a question how digital do you plan to have requirements put into digital way? Not only in a narrative way, but also in digital way. What kind of information would you need in digital for doing your analysis?

Audrey Yue: So if I understand your question correctly, you’re asking us about the kinds of digital resources that are required, right? So I think it’s before and after. So the before one is the behavioral traits and your mindset, your exposure to risk. So say, for example, if you have been exposed to online scams, I think you would be a bit more experienced and vigilant and you say, okay, I’m not going to do this again, right? So that’s the before part. And then the after part, right, the digital skills. I think we need to train people in technical use, but not just that, but for users to understand digital literacy and critical literacy in a broader dimension that is both digital and non-digital as well, and how the digital affects offline habits of life, right? And then after that, the citizenship part means, okay, then if we can navigate that, then we can actually have agency and be empowered. So how can we proactively cope? How can we behave online and in society in such a way that is ethical to ourselves and the users around us?

Horst Kremers: Yeah, fantastic. Thank you very much for this explanation. We certainly will, in the course of the presentations, we’ll touch some of these issues also, and I think this is a very good perspective of cooperation. So I will call the next presentation, please, that is from colleagues from Turkey. And his presentation will be by, the title is On the Role of Visuals in Digital Solidarity During Crisis, an Analysis of the 2023 Earthquake in Turkey. The presentation is by Bengui Sitser, lecturer of Mersin University in Turkey. Bengui Sitser graduated from Mersin University in Department of English Linguistics, completed an MA degree in Mersin University Institute of Social Sciences, and a PhD at the same institute. She has been working as a lecturer since 2006. On the other hand, she continues her work in the field of new media and social media. Bengui Sitser, are you online? Hi, it’s, oh, sorry.

Bengu Sezer: Hi, I’m here.

Horst Kremers: Yeah, we have, first we have the video presentation and then you’re available for questions. Yes, please. Please start the video presentation.

Bengu Sezer: Good morning, everyone. My name is Bengui Sitser. I’m going to present our project today, which is The Role of Visuals in Digital Solidarity during Crisis, an Analysis of 2023 Earthquakes in Turkey. This is a three year of, three years of project, which is funded by TÜBİTAK, the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey. Dr. Kıyam, who is our project coordinator, and Dr. Sezer and myself as researchers, we are carrying out this project with a team of six TÜBİTAK funded scholarship holders. They are students, master’s and bachelor students. We are doing this all together. As We Are Social also states, information and communication technologies are widespread and have a high rate of usage in Turkey. And X, formerly Twitter, is tend to be used more often to reach news, especially in times of crisis in our country. We aim to investigate how citizens used visual content on social media, especially on X, to document and communicate during 2023 earthquakes in Turkey. By analyzing 54,859 earthquake-related visuals shared in the first week following the disaster, the project explores the role of images in shaping digital solidarity, crisis communication and cross-platform information flows in an increasingly visual-oriented media environment. Our project is composed of four work packages. Image annotation and analysis is only one work package, which I’m going to talk about today. First phase was data collection. We started to collect the data in the first week of the earthquakes. Then we separated visuals and the text data. For visuals, we created a codebook to annotate around 54,000 images. Once the codebook was ready, we designed the interface according to our requirements. As the last step, we trained our students to annotate the data. Here you see our annotation interface. We structured our annotation system so that each image is annotated by two different annotators. If they agree on each code, the image is automatically saved to the database. If not, as you see here, the red parts are the items on which annotators didn’t agree. In this case, an experienced annotator or one of the researchers checked the entry and decide what to do. As the items are not subjective, disagreement is generally a result of unintentional mistake. So we blocked this kind of mistakes by employing two different annotators. This section enables the tracking of finalized annotated images. Through frequency analysis and advanced queries on these visuals, it aims to establish a productive and scalable resource that can support a wide range of future research endeavors across disciplines. The annotation process is a labor-intensive task, which forms the backbone of our analytical framework, ensuring that each image is contextually and thematically categorized. Completion is expected by October 2025, paving the way for structured analysis. Secondly, following the annotation phase, the visual dataset will undergo both quantitative and qualitative analysis, including frequency patterns, thematic clustering, and platform-specific dissemination behaviors. These insights will be consolidated into academic publications, with initial findings expected to be released by the end of 2026. Based on the visual evidence and communication patterns observed in times of crisis, the study will offer concrete policy recommendations. These will address gaps in crisis communication, digital resilience, and participatory civic engagement tailored for use by governmental bodies, NGOs, and other stakeholders working in disaster response and digital governance. The initial findings of our project indicate that visual content produced during times of crisis strengthens digital solidarity. In this context, both the widespread availability of information and communication technologies and the maintenance of open and accessible communication channels are of great importance for effectively responding. Thank you very much, Dr. Bengü Sezer. Maybe you want to add some remarks to your presentation yourself? Thank you so much. Thank you for this opportunity. We are glad to be a part of this roundtable. We are really thrilled to be a part of this organization.

Horst Kremers: Yes, I think we have questions here from the auditorium, please. Please, Mr. Giacomo Mazzona.

Giacomo Mazzone: Yes, my question is, I see that you have a recommendation planned in your study. This recommendation will be for whom and for what? In which specific field will it be?

Bengu Sezer: The recommendation will be expected for the government, for NGOs to take precaution on what is important in the very first days of a disaster. We have seen a lot. We have seen that communication is really important and it was blocked in the very first days of the disaster here. We expect these kinds of contributions.

Giacomo Mazzone: Yes, the follow-up is, because we know what happened during this earthquake is that for two days there was no telecommunication in operation. The only way to communicate was broadcasting, mainly radio and then television. So, what are the lessons learned from this experience? That will be in the recommendation. Is the recommendation already prepared or are you still working on it? If you have an idea, where will you go with this recommendation?

Bengu Sezer: We think the internet structure should be strengthened. There should be mobile internet providers. As the communication was blocked, that was a real problem in the very first days.

Horst Kremers: Internet access. Okay, thank you very much for the question. I think that also we would like to have a specific, if it’s possible in your project, to make a specific remark. Also, on the kind of preparation of the organizational principles of the organization. I think that we have to the organizational principles that whosoever would do that service, would you do it from the institute in times of disaster or should all the service, you see that taking pictures or selecting pictures, analyzing social media, should that be done by some spot in government and so on. So, your recommendations also should cover these things and also preparation, what should be done in preparation of disaster, anticipation of crisis and so on. So, just to kick off and not to start working on elaborating how to do it in times of disaster.

Bengu Sezer: If I understood correctly, you asked how should the images collected, right?

Horst Kremers: No, not the images collected. Who should be running your system? You’re a science institution and you show the feasibility and the usefulness of your project work. After project, it should be implemented for ad hoc used in times of disaster. Maybe you find some ideas also to write in your project report how you think who should do it or who can do it or suggest to do it. We collected the data from the Twitter’s API.

Bengu Sezer: We personally took the step. I also think like you, governments should record these kinds of disasters. But in our case, we started this. We used Twitter API to collect the data with image and text messages. It was the very first days of the earthquake. We decided quickly so that no posts were missed, I think. We collected most of them. We are funded by TÜBİTAK. TÜBİTAK is the Scientific and Technological Research Council in Turkey. We couldn’t have done the rest of it without them. But the very first steps were taken

Horst Kremers: by us personally. Thank you very much. This is important work. And society and organizations certainly will benefit from your kind of analysis. Thank you very much for having that presentation and greetings also to your colleagues. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much, too. Okay. We call the next presentation. That is myself. I’m working, as I’ve said in the introduction, since the years of the Agenda 21 of the so-called Rio Declaration on Environmental Affairs. At that time, there was not much sustainable development terminology. But from that time, we had a lot of activity in all of society. United Nations-induced all-of-society activities. And in the environmental field, there was a time where it was very active. Also in Germany, I experienced that myself at that time. And since that time, now we go for all-of-society information demands in 2030 plus. Why 2030 plus? Because the Sendai Frameworks that I mentioned runs out in 2030, and we are already expecting what to suggest for writing in the next follow-up framework. The structure of my presentation is situation and complexity of current tax, the basic role of information management, some challenges, recommendations for action, disaster risk reduction 2030 plus. So I will be short because we don’t have very much time. So there is sometimes a lot of text in my slides. I will only note parts of that. There is a link and a QR code in the last file where you can download that presentation and read all the details. Following from the United Nations definition of mayor groups and other stakeholders, there is a scheme. You don’t have to read all this, but that is kind of the typical stakeholders definitions. In the course of time of my involvement with UNDRR, Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism, and also with observing what is going on, we have a collection of post-event reports of reporting on disaster. These are partly very voluminous documentations. And when you go through this and you see who is involved in disaster, then you see all these organizations. So I don’t want to read single one of them. I just want to mention, because we come back to this, that is the chambers of engineers should be here somewhere. Where did I put it? Engineers and architects. On the bottom, but for us is also very important. So situation and complexity about this. The massive complexity of cross-organizational cross-border information flows for decision support, operational management, and for emergency services, public administration, law enforcement agencies, critical infrastructure operators, the private sector, civil society organization institutions, and civil-military cooperation. Well, this is real complex when you know that all of them need vice versa information. And this is not running as quickly and as definite as we would wish. Also, that is experience from that post-disaster documentations. That requires comprehensive interoperability for information in all phases of disaster management. Don’t want to read all these phases, but it’s not only first response, but it’s also in the preparation and in the aftermath of the disaster. Very important, because people suffer so much also in months, in years, many years after a disaster. The situation is also defined for decision and action support of all these actors I listed. Not for general, somewhat only government, and they will care for their decisions. Government is absolutely important, but society is structured in a very… and Dr. Renae Loh, Dr. ZHAN ZHANG, Ms. Emillie de Keulenaar, Dr. Jun YU, Dr. ZHAN ZHANG, Ms. just in time in a definite predefined way of timestamp and periodicity every two minutes, every two hours, every two days or whatsoever to make that not just when the information comes we will use it but to negotiate for quality in organizational principles and make sure that you get the information just in time. That is what all these reports of aftermath of disaster are telling us and we need certainly it’s hard to implement. I tell you it’s not easy and I want to mention that here. One domain I want to mention in detail was a financial domain where where is the money gone? Is it there effectiveness in a synergy of spending money from the financial domain? We all know that there is a lot of money internationally sometimes moved. It’s important but sometimes people say well who knows where it really went. The role of media we have a special activity track together with Giacomo Mazzoni in risk journalism, media and radio and so on. So that is a special track of activities and there is also United Nations says about accountability, fraud, crime and last not least audits, independent audits of what happens. I just can recommend from the information point of view. The engineering and architecture in all phases of disaster management, this is only a list of what typically they are doing in first order. Very very rough scheme that can be detailed and has been detailed already by a report written by the world commission on engineering and so this is mentioned here on the side and we have to go on in that direction for in principle for all the stakeholder groups that we mentioned in the previous tables. The information management goes from these schemes especially from narrative to implementation I say and from data to decision and action. Selected challenges. I just want to mention the personnel, human resources, education and curricula. We are far behind what we need. Big data, standard operational procedures, service level agreements and so on. Creating a common European information space would be adequate because so many European standard information spaces are created and operating already. Disaster risk reduction 2030 would mean start now collecting amendments, extensions to be considered for shaping the 2030 plus reduction framework. Broadening the scope to existing pillars of societal resilience, that is what I call the society domain. Include requirements of information society, situations of exceptional needs, that is a terminology that the European Union used in recent times and central role of information management. Shaping resilient futures and empowering next generations. With that I come to our common goals, digital innovation, increasing and ensuring thematic humanitarian efficiency, cross organizational, cross border coherence, granting just in time information in line with all of society demands and in line with involving societal expectations. Society has its own expectations in terms of information management. Serving citizens just in time with technology methods and quality content. Thank you very much for your attention. Here you have the QR code for the download and there is also the link to download the PDF version. Keep in contact. We want this event also for kickoff of an international working group so we will continue especially on the topic of information society in times of risk. You’re welcome to join the discussion. Thank you. Urgent questions? Not at the moment so we are short in time and please we have the next speaker that is, oh we have the presentation of ZHAN ZHANG now that comes first.

Zhan Zhang: Good morning everyone. My apologies for not being able to join the session in person at this moment and I would like to say thanks to the organizers especially Mr. Horace Clemes for bringing us together for this important discussion. In my presentation I will briefly introduce one case study from Tencent, one leading tech company in China, focusing on how its digital initiatives and CSI efforts are shaping new pathway for technology-enabled disaster resilience. In an environmentally diverse country like China, natural disasters are a persistent reality. The country experiences multiple disasters each year causing significant harm to both human lives and the economy. A notable example was the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake which caused nearly 70,000 deaths and left millions displaced. Recent data from 2024 also reviews the continued situation highlighting the ongoing need for disaster risk reduction strategies, early warning systems, and sustainable recovery mechanisms in the country. If we look at the evolving engagement of Tencent in natural disaster support, it was clear that the Wenchuan earthquake in 2008 did push the company to develop an early version of its integrated disaster relief model and the multi-dimensional rescue framework. Today I will mainly focus on two digital initiatives during the past decade as part of the three-dimensional disaster relief initiative which leveraged Tencent’s digital infrastructure and products to support disaster response and recovery. First, Tencent’s 9i Gaming Day was launched in 2015 and has evolved into one of the largest online philanthropic events in China. Built on a fully digitized platform, the initiative allows Tencent users to easily access information about a wide range of charitable projects including natural disaster related projects, make donations with zero barriers, and track how their contributions are used. The initiative has seen remarkable growth in recent years with annual online donations exceeding 500 million dollars and active online participants reaching over 60 millions. Through Tencent’s flagship product WeChat, for example, all the projects related to natural disaster support have been accessible via a dedicated WeChat mini program since 2017. Tencent Docs were created, used, and shared through WeChat groups and WeChat moments during one of the natural disasters in 2021 Zhengzhou which allowed real-time reviews, updates over 6 million times and helped coordinating about 3,000 rescues during that local disaster. In 2023, Tencent introduced digital relief vouchers through WeChat Pay allowing disaster-affected families to purchase essential items based on their personalized needs and at the same time it also unleashes the power of a merchant system that local businesses could easily join such digital service. Building on these ongoing digital initiatives, Tencent announced earlier this year the launch of a digital disaster preparedness and relief support system. The system is beneficiary-centered with particular attention given to vulnerable groups, locally grounded, and technology-enabled. It addresses all the four phases of the disaster management cycle and outlines specific digital interventions at each stage with a strong emphasis on mobilizing and integrating local resources to establish a sustainable community driven model for disaster support that enhances local resilience and operational efficiency over the long term. Looking ahead, such frontline empowerment and localized integration are becoming central pillars in how Chinese tech companies approach digital and technological support for natural disaster management. The deployment of AI is also part of this blueprint. However, the current efforts mostly focus on building AI-powered knowledge base. Other AI applications are still in an early stage of development. with limited integration into real-time operational systems and the construction of cross-sector co-creation platforms. Thank you for your listening. And if you have further questions, feel free to contact me.

Horst Kremers: Yes, thank you very much. So we have this presentation because ZHAN ZHANG is not possible to have online because she is traveling at the very moment. So this could only be made as a presentation. Without further ado, I call the next speaker. That is Emillie de Keulenaar. She is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Copenhagen, a researcher at the University of Amsterdam’s Digital Methods Initiative and Open Intelligence Lab and a consultant of UNDPPA’s Innovation Cell. Her research is about the politics of speech moderation and the implementation of public dialogue processes in algorithmic systems. Thank you very much for being here and we were interested in your presentation.

Emillie de Keulenaar: I guess I have to use this? Yes. Sorry. Okay, so the case study here is a little bit different in that it focused more on the probability and the risk of conflict in social media environments. So there is this underlying critique that has started first in academic literature and now flows around a lot of public media, if you will, a lot of political discourse, which is that social media as a political information environment is a site of conflict and it produces lingering conflict in the sense that the way that it’s designed does not necessarily prioritize social cohesion or forms and processes of dialogue, but more so a number of special business interests. So the lingering risk in that sense is the possibility that conflict might emerge and other phenomena related to conflict might emerge from the use of social media. So that ranges from effective polarization to other forms of conflict that have been framed as, for example, the political entrenchment and the difficulty of crossing cross-political or social lines or pluralistic ignorance where we tend to consider or blame political opponents as more simplistically or caricaturely than what their arguments or positions actually are and so on and so forth. And it’s a source of risk in the sense that these forms of conflict that it produces, from pluralistic ignorance to fragmentation to entrenchment, have a number of spiraling effects. They can range from a loss of consensus or a shared reality amongst users all the way to the production of misinformation as a result of shared reality and consensus, or disinformation as a sort of instrumentalized way by state actors to tap into vulnerable and fragmented information ecosystems, to, as a result, a loss of trust in public institutions that’s particularly visible in the United States, to offline conflict, again, particularly visible in the United States, like in the Capitol Hill riots, to a number of key policies, especially for societal or even ecological resilience, for example, sustainability policies not being passed, not benefiting from popular support because of a fragmented information environment. And so some of the solution frameworks for this problem have been, let’s say, bundled up under one main agenda that’s been called pro-social platform design. And what that is about is essentially a collection of governance, design, and moderation protocols designed to facilitate and steer or produce social cohesion and societal dialogue through platform design. And in a sense, one can think about the notion of sustainability when one considers these pro-social platform design protocols in the sense that it’s based on the premise that if you tend to reduce online conflict, then you will tend to reduce a number of other phenomena that decur from conflict as a result. So, for example, the production of misinformation. And you tend to maintain the production of social cohesion as a result. One example is what we call bridging systems. So bridging systems can be seen as algorithms that you can plug in or plug out existing social media platforms like recommenders. So recommendation systems, and you might have seen this on YouTube, for example, they tend to prioritize very popular and sensationalistic content, whereas bridging systems will try to promote content that is consensual across political and social divides. And there may be an infinite number of different bridging systems in the sense that it’s just a framework, it’s an open problem, it’s not one specific solution, but it’s a framework through which to think of alternative platform design, if you will. And so one example, as I said, is bridging and balancing sources on social media Another is also facilitating social dynamism. So it’s facilitating the composition of different user groups based on political or social lines that facilitate cross-political, political crossovers. Another is giving social context. So features that facilitate understanding what are the premises and backgrounds and positions and lived experiences for other users that belong to other political divides and so on. And one can think in terms of a governance structure of kind of a stack. So how does one implement these sorts of policies and alternative design protocols? One can think first of, let’s say, high-level legislation or regulation or policies and standards that might first be deliberated on in public forums, such as this one, so OASIS or the Internet Governance Forum or other, where the method is through, let’s say, public consultations and deliberation with notable stakeholders, but also the public at large. And then operationalization is a key point of that in the sense that it’s all about transforming ideas or formulas for public dialogue into algorithmic systems. So this is the dialogue that goes from, let’s say, the political theorist to the computer scientist. This kind of crossover is operationalization. That can be done through a number of public hackathons and so on. The infrastructure, for example, there is this notion of middleware, which could be a public repository of alternative algorithms that one can plug in or plug out, decentralized social media platforms like BlueSky or Mastodon, and assessment protocols, so to look into, OK, what is the long-term sustainability of these alternative protocols that we’re recommending? And that’s it. Thank you.

Horst Kremers: Yeah, thank you very much. I apologize that we run a little bit out of time. But there are, like, recommender systems is something that we also would need for… One of the management principles in digital way is to make recommendations rather than decisions, to support decisions by making a lot of or a set of recommendations also to be documented, I say, on what kind of available decision alternatives can we act. So there is a lot of activities behind that. And I give the last word and the wrap-up to my friend Ke Guang.

Ke Gong: Thank you. Thank you so much. And I would like to thank all the participants for your active engagement and presenters. You talked about the information society’s responsibility and activities in the time of crisis from different aspects. For example, Emily has just provided a forward-looking vision for content moderation in high-conflict environments, advocating for sustainable consensus-based approaches that foster civic dialogue and societal cohesion. And also, our Turkish colleagues have analyzed how visuals shared on social media during the earthquake two years ago became a powerful tool for digital solidarity. And our Singapore team has provided a DRIVE project that stands for the Digital Resilience Indicators for Veritable Empowerment. I think that is a comprehensive approach, a comprehensive socio-ecological approach for long-term empowerment. And also, Zhang has offered in-depth cases from China. And Horst has reminded us of the fundamental principles from Agenda 21 and the CENTI framework highlighting the urgent need for all-society collaboration and integrated information management in disaster risk reduction. So with this, I think when we reflect on these insights, let us carry forward a shared commitment to build a resilient information society that is inclusive, proactive, and grounded in solidarity. I borrow the word used by our Turkish friends. So with this, we encourage all of you to stay connected beyond this forum and to exchange ideas, collaboration, good practices, and so on and so forth, and to carry out our responsibility as an information society to build a resilient world which is sustained and left no one behind. So with this, I declare the conclusion of this session. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-level, socio-ecological approaches are essential for digital resilience

Speakers

– Audrey Yue
– Renae Loh
– Jun Yu
– Ke Gong

Arguments

Digital resilience should be understood as a socio-ecological process shaped by users’ disposition, resources, and environments rather than just individual skills

Current conceptualizations focus too heavily on organizational capacity and individual psychological capabilities, missing the broader social context

Digital resilience must be viewed as collective capability involving dynamic interplay between people, social formations, and broader digital environments

Comprehensive socio-ecological approaches are needed for long-term empowerment in digital resilience

Summary

All speakers from the Singapore team and the session chair agree that digital resilience cannot be understood as merely individual technical skills but requires comprehensive socio-ecological frameworks that account for multiple levels of social organization and environmental factors.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Communication infrastructure resilience is critical during disasters

Speakers

– Bengu Sezer
– Giacomo Mazzone
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

Communication infrastructure must be strengthened with mobile internet providers to prevent communication blackouts during disasters

Media and broadcasting remain critical when digital communication fails, as seen during earthquake communication blackouts

Comprehensive interoperability is required for information flows across all disaster management phases involving multiple stakeholder groups

Summary

These speakers agree that maintaining communication channels during disasters is essential, whether through strengthened digital infrastructure, backup traditional media systems, or comprehensive interoperability frameworks.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Technology-enabled solutions require beneficiary-centered approaches with attention to vulnerable groups

Speakers

– Zhan Zhang
– Horst Kremers
– Ke Gong

Arguments

Beneficiary-centered digital systems with attention to vulnerable groups can enhance local resilience and operational efficiency

Information management must serve decision and action support for emergency services, public administration, private sector, and civil society organizations

Building resilient information society requires inclusive, proactive approaches grounded in solidarity across all stakeholder groups

Summary

These speakers share the view that technology solutions must be designed with beneficiaries at the center, particularly considering vulnerable groups and ensuring inclusive approaches that serve all stakeholders in society.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

The Singapore research team shares a unified perspective on digital resilience as a collective, socio-ecological phenomenon that transcends individual capabilities and requires understanding of broader social, institutional, and environmental contexts.

Speakers

– Audrey Yue
– Jun Yu
– Renae Loh

Arguments

Digital resilience should be understood as a socio-ecological process shaped by users’ disposition, resources, and environments rather than just individual skills

Digital resilience must be viewed as collective capability involving dynamic interplay between people, social formations, and broader digital environments

Current conceptualizations focus too heavily on organizational capacity and individual psychological capabilities, missing the broader social context

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasize the need for systematic analysis of crisis communication to inform policy development and framework updates for disaster risk reduction.

Speakers

– Bengu Sezer
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

Systematic analysis of crisis-related visuals can provide insights for policy recommendations to governments and NGOs

The 2030+ disaster risk reduction framework should include requirements for information society and exceptional needs situations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers recognize the potential of digital platforms to serve positive social functions, whether for disaster response mobilization or conflict reduction, when designed with pro-social objectives.

Speakers

– Zhan Zhang
– Emillie de Keulenaar

Arguments

Digital platforms can mobilize large-scale philanthropic responses, as demonstrated by Tencent’s 9i Gaming Day reaching 60 million participants

Pro-social platform design protocols including bridging systems can reduce online conflict and maintain social cohesion

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Unexpected consensus

Integration of traditional and digital communication systems

Speakers

– Giacomo Mazzone
– Bengu Sezer
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

Media and broadcasting remain critical when digital communication fails, as seen during earthquake communication blackouts

Communication infrastructure must be strengthened with mobile internet providers to prevent communication blackouts during disasters

Comprehensive interoperability is required for information flows across all disaster management phases involving multiple stakeholder groups

Explanation

Despite coming from different professional backgrounds (media, academic research, and information management), these speakers unexpectedly converged on the need for hybrid communication systems that integrate both traditional broadcasting and digital infrastructure, recognizing that neither alone is sufficient for crisis communication.

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights

Collective responsibility in digital environments

Speakers

– Jun Yu
– Emillie de Keulenaar
– Ke Gong

Arguments

Digital resilience must be viewed as collective capability involving dynamic interplay between people, social formations, and broader digital environments

Social media platforms create lingering conflict risks through design that prioritizes business interests over social cohesion

Building resilient information society requires inclusive, proactive approaches grounded in solidarity across all stakeholder groups

Explanation

These speakers from different research domains (digital resilience, platform design, and engineering) unexpectedly aligned on viewing digital challenges as collective rather than individual responsibilities, emphasizing the need for shared approaches to digital citizenship and social cohesion.

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus around three main areas: the need for multi-level, socio-ecological approaches to digital resilience; the critical importance of communication infrastructure resilience during disasters; and the requirement for beneficiary-centered, inclusive technology solutions that consider vulnerable groups.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for the field. The agreement across diverse professional backgrounds (academic researchers, tech industry representatives, media experts, and policy practitioners) suggests a maturing understanding of information society challenges during crises. This consensus points toward the need for integrated, multi-stakeholder approaches that combine technical infrastructure development with social resilience building, moving beyond siloed solutions toward comprehensive frameworks that address both individual and collective needs in times of risk.

Different viewpoints

Individual vs. Collective Approach to Digital Resilience

Speakers

– Audrey Yue
– Renae Loh
– Jun Yu

Arguments

Digital resilience should be understood as a socio-ecological process shaped by users’ disposition, resources, and environments rather than just individual skills

Current conceptualizations focus too heavily on organizational capacity and individual psychological capabilities, missing the broader social context

Digital resilience must be viewed as collective capability involving dynamic interplay between people, social formations, and broader digital environments

Summary

While all three speakers from the Singapore team agree on moving beyond individual-focused approaches, they present this as disagreeing with existing literature and current practices that focus too heavily on individual psychological capabilities and organizational capacity rather than broader social-ecological approaches.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Communication Infrastructure Priorities During Disasters

Speakers

– Bengu Sezer
– Giacomo Mazzone

Arguments

Communication infrastructure must be strengthened with mobile internet providers to prevent communication blackouts during disasters

Media and broadcasting remain critical when digital communication fails, as seen during earthquake communication blackouts

Summary

Sezer emphasizes strengthening internet infrastructure and mobile providers as the solution, while Mazzone highlights the continued importance of traditional broadcasting media as backup when digital systems fail.

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights

Unexpected differences

Role of AI in Disaster Management

Speakers

– Zhan Zhang

Arguments

AI applications in disaster management are still in early development stages with limited real-time operational integration

Explanation

Zhang’s cautious assessment of AI capabilities contrasts with the generally optimistic tone about digital solutions presented by other speakers. This unexpected restraint about AI’s current limitations stands out in a discussion otherwise focused on digital innovation potential.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus on core principles with limited direct disagreements. Most differences were methodological rather than fundamental, focusing on different approaches to achieve shared goals of resilient information society.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high convergence on principles. The main tensions were between individual vs. collective approaches to resilience and different infrastructure priorities during disasters. This high level of agreement suggests strong foundational consensus in the field, but may also indicate need for more diverse perspectives to address potential blind spots in current thinking.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

The Singapore research team shares a unified perspective on digital resilience as a collective, socio-ecological phenomenon that transcends individual capabilities and requires understanding of broader social, institutional, and environmental contexts.

Speakers

– Audrey Yue
– Jun Yu
– Renae Loh

Arguments

Digital resilience should be understood as a socio-ecological process shaped by users’ disposition, resources, and environments rather than just individual skills

Digital resilience must be viewed as collective capability involving dynamic interplay between people, social formations, and broader digital environments

Current conceptualizations focus too heavily on organizational capacity and individual psychological capabilities, missing the broader social context

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasize the need for systematic analysis of crisis communication to inform policy development and framework updates for disaster risk reduction.

Speakers

– Bengu Sezer
– Horst Kremers

Arguments

Systematic analysis of crisis-related visuals can provide insights for policy recommendations to governments and NGOs

The 2030+ disaster risk reduction framework should include requirements for information society and exceptional needs situations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers recognize the potential of digital platforms to serve positive social functions, whether for disaster response mobilization or conflict reduction, when designed with pro-social objectives.

Speakers

– Zhan Zhang
– Emillie de Keulenaar

Arguments

Digital platforms can mobilize large-scale philanthropic responses, as demonstrated by Tencent’s 9i Gaming Day reaching 60 million participants

Pro-social platform design protocols including bridging systems can reduce online conflict and maintain social cohesion

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Key takeaways

Digital resilience must be understood as a socio-ecological process involving individual, family, community, and societal levels rather than just individual technical skills

Visual content on social media serves as a powerful tool for digital solidarity and crisis documentation, as demonstrated during the 2023 Turkey earthquake

Communication infrastructure resilience is critical – communication blackouts during disasters highlight the need for strengthened mobile internet and backup systems

All-of-society information management requires comprehensive interoperability across multiple stakeholder groups including government, private sector, NGOs, and civil society

Just-in-time information delivery with predefined quality standards is essential for effective disaster response across all phases of disaster management

Technology companies can play significant roles in disaster response through digital platforms that mobilize resources and support affected communities

Social media platform design creates risks of conflict and fragmentation that can undermine societal resilience and consensus-building

The post-2030 disaster risk reduction framework should incorporate information society requirements and address situations of exceptional needs

Resolutions and action items

Establish an international working group on ‘information society in times of risk’ to continue collaboration beyond this session

Complete the Turkey earthquake visual analysis project by October 2025 with policy recommendations for governments and NGOs

Develop policy recommendations addressing communication infrastructure gaps and digital governance for disaster response

Create amendments and extensions for the 2030+ disaster risk reduction framework incorporating information society requirements

Maintain ongoing collaboration and exchange of ideas, practices, and research among session participants

Unresolved issues

Who should operationally manage digital crisis response systems – whether academic institutions, government agencies, or other organizations

How to implement comprehensive interoperability standards across diverse stakeholder groups and organizational boundaries

Specific mechanisms for ensuring just-in-time information delivery with quality guarantees during crisis situations

How to balance business interests of social media platforms with pro-social design requirements for societal resilience

Integration challenges for AI applications in real-time disaster management operational systems

Funding and sustainability models for implementing digital resilience frameworks at scale

Standardization of visual content analysis methodologies for cross-disaster and cross-cultural applications

Suggested compromises

Multi-level governance approach for platform design that combines high-level policies with operational algorithmic systems

Hybrid approach to crisis communication using both digital platforms and traditional broadcasting when digital systems fail

Beneficiary-centered digital systems that balance technological capabilities with attention to vulnerable groups and local contexts

Bridging systems that can be plugged into existing social media platforms rather than requiring complete platform redesign

Digital resilience isn’t just about personal safety or protection. It is also about contributing to a healthier digital society. This adds a normative dimension that digital resilience becomes a shared responsibility and a core component of what it means to be a digital citizen in the 21st century.

Speaker

Jun Yu

Reason

This comment is particularly insightful because it reframes digital resilience from an individual protective measure to a collective civic responsibility. It introduces the normative dimension that transforms the concept from merely defensive to actively constructive, connecting digital skills to citizenship and social contribution.

Impact

This comment elevated the entire discussion by establishing a philosophical foundation that connected individual capabilities to societal well-being. It influenced subsequent presentations to consider broader social implications rather than just technical solutions, and provided a framework that other speakers could reference when discussing community-level interventions.

We think the internet structure should be strengthened. There should be mobile internet providers. As the communication was blocked, that was a real problem in the very first days… We couldn’t have done the rest of it without them. But the very first steps were taken by us personally.

Speaker

Bengu Sezer

Reason

This comment reveals a critical gap between academic research capabilities and institutional disaster response. It highlights how researchers had to take personal initiative to capture crucial data during the earthquake, exposing the lack of systematic governmental or organizational frameworks for real-time crisis data collection.

Impact

This comment prompted Horst Kremers to push for more concrete recommendations about institutional responsibility and preparation. It shifted the discussion from theoretical frameworks to practical implementation questions about who should run such systems and how they should be prepared in advance, rather than improvised during crises.

The massive complexity of cross-organizational cross-border information flows for decision support… requires comprehensive interoperability for information in all phases of disaster management… just in time in a definite predefined way of timestamp and periodicity every two minutes, every two hours, every two days.

Speaker

Horst Kremers

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it quantifies the information challenge in disaster management with specific temporal requirements. It moves beyond general calls for ‘better coordination’ to articulate the precise, systematic nature of information flow needed across multiple organizational levels and timeframes.

Impact

This comment established the technical and organizational complexity that underlies all the theoretical frameworks discussed. It provided a reality check that influenced how other participants framed their solutions, emphasizing the need for systematic, pre-negotiated information protocols rather than ad-hoc responses.

The lingering risk in that sense is the possibility that conflict might emerge… from the use of social media… these forms of conflict that it produces, from pluralistic ignorance to fragmentation to entrenchment, have a number of spiraling effects… all the way to offline conflict.

Speaker

Emillie de Keulenaar

Reason

This comment is insightful because it introduces a completely different type of risk – not natural disasters or technical failures, but the risk that information systems themselves generate conflict. It challenges the assumption that digital platforms are neutral tools and highlights how platform design can either exacerbate or mitigate social tensions.

Impact

This comment broadened the scope of the entire session by introducing the concept that information systems can be sources of risk rather than just solutions to risk. It connected technical design decisions to social cohesion outcomes, influencing the final wrap-up to emphasize solidarity and inclusive approaches to information society development.

Digital resilience, despite the term digital, isn’t actually just about technical or digital know-how or avoiding the digital harms and risk. It’s more broadly about maintaining one’s activities and goals, even when digital systems and tools falter.

Speaker

Jun Yu

Reason

This comment is particularly thought-provoking because it paradoxically redefines ‘digital resilience’ as fundamentally about non-digital capabilities. It challenges the assumption that digital problems require digital solutions, instead emphasizing human adaptability and goal-oriented thinking as the core of resilience.

Impact

This redefinition influenced how subsequent speakers approached the relationship between technology and human agency. It provided a conceptual bridge that allowed the discussion to move fluidly between technical infrastructure concerns and human-centered approaches, ultimately supporting the session’s emphasis on socio-ecological frameworks.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical discussion about crisis management tools into a nuanced exploration of the relationship between technology, society, and human agency. The Singapore team’s normative framing of digital citizenship established a philosophical foundation that elevated the entire discussion. The Turkish researcher’s candid admission about institutional gaps provided crucial practical grounding that prevented the session from remaining purely theoretical. Kremers’ systematic articulation of information complexity provided the technical reality check that informed all subsequent discussions. De Keulenaar’s introduction of platform-generated conflict risks broadened the scope to include information systems as potential sources of societal risk. Together, these comments created a multi-layered conversation that successfully integrated individual, community, institutional, and societal perspectives on information society resilience, ultimately supporting the session’s goal of fostering ‘all-of-society’ approaches to crisis management.

How digital do you plan to have requirements put into digital way? What kind of information would you need in digital for doing your analysis?

Speaker

Horst Kremers

Explanation

This question seeks clarification on the technical implementation and data requirements for the DRIVE framework’s digital resilience analysis, moving beyond narrative approaches to actual digital implementation.

Who should be running your system after the project ends? How should the implementation be organized for ad hoc use in times of disaster?

Speaker

Horst Kremers

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap between research feasibility studies and operational implementation, questioning organizational responsibility and preparedness structures for disaster response systems.

What are the lessons learned from the earthquake experience regarding telecommunication failures? Where will the recommendations go?

Speaker

Giacomo Mazzone

Explanation

This follows up on the practical implications of communication infrastructure failures during disasters and seeks clarity on how research findings will be translated into actionable policy recommendations.

How to ensure cross-organizational, cross-border information flows work effectively in real-time during disasters?

Speaker

Horst Kremers (implied)

Explanation

This addresses the complex challenge of coordinating information management across multiple stakeholders and jurisdictions during crisis situations, which was identified as currently inadequate.

How to implement ‘just-in-time’ information delivery with predefined timestamps and quality standards across all disaster management phases?

Speaker

Horst Kremers (implied)

Explanation

This technical challenge involves creating systematic information delivery protocols that go beyond ad-hoc information sharing to structured, quality-assured communication systems.

How to operationalize the transformation of public dialogue ideas into algorithmic systems for pro-social platform design?

Speaker

Emillie de Keulenaar (implied)

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap between political theory and computer science implementation in creating platforms that foster social cohesion rather than conflict.

How to assess the long-term sustainability of alternative platform design protocols?

Speaker

Emillie de Keulenaar (implied)

Explanation

This research area focuses on developing evaluation methods for measuring the effectiveness and durability of pro-social platform design interventions.

How to integrate AI applications beyond knowledge bases into real-time operational disaster management systems?

Speaker

Zhan Zhang (implied)

Explanation

This identifies a current limitation in AI deployment for disaster management, suggesting need for research into more sophisticated real-time AI integration.

How to develop comprehensive interoperability standards for information management across all phases of disaster management?

Speaker

Horst Kremers (implied)

Explanation

This addresses the technical challenge of ensuring different systems and organizations can effectively share and use information throughout the complete disaster management cycle.

What amendments and extensions should be considered for the post-2030 disaster risk reduction framework?

Speaker

Horst Kremers (implied)

Explanation

This forward-looking research area involves preparing recommendations for the next iteration of international disaster risk reduction frameworks beyond the current Sendai Framework.

Summary

This discussion focused on how Industry 4.0 and smart manufacturing technologies can accelerate structural transformation in developing countries, particularly in Africa. The session was co-organized by ESMA (Alliance for Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing in Africa), UNIDO, and the Digital Transformation Alliance. Rafik Feki, UNIDO representative for several West African countries, explained that his organization provides comprehensive technical assistance to African nations seeking to adopt smart manufacturing, including ecosystem assessments, policy development, human capital preparation, and institutional support. He emphasized that Industry 4.0 represents a complete industrial revolution requiring changes in thinking and planning approaches, not merely technology adoption.

Professor Sama Mbang, CEO of the Digital Transformation Alliance and UNIDO expert, highlighted the transformative opportunities that Industry 4.0 presents for developing countries to leapfrog outdated production systems. He explained that these technologies enable increased productivity, improved quality standards for international markets, enhanced traceability, reduced production costs, and local value addition instead of merely exporting raw materials. The discussion revealed that several African countries including Tunisia, Kenya, Cameroon, and Morocco are already implementing Industry 4.0 programs.

A key challenge identified was the need for awareness-raising among policymakers who sometimes believe their countries must progress through earlier industrial revolutions before adopting Industry 4.0 technologies. Both experts stressed that digital transformation is not optional for Africa’s industrial development and competitiveness. The session concluded with announcements about an upcoming major conference in Morocco focusing on smart manufacturing in Africa, emphasizing the critical importance of building local technological expertise and capacity rather than simply importing advanced machinery.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **UNIDO’s comprehensive approach to Industry 4.0 implementation in Africa**: Rafik Feki outlined UNIDO’s multi-faceted strategy including ecosystem assessment, policy development, human capital preparation, institutional support, and enterprise-level assistance across multiple African countries including Senegal, Morocco, Tunisia, and others.

– **Industry 4.0 as a leapfrogging opportunity for developing countries**: Professor Sama Mbang emphasized how advanced digital technologies can help African nations bypass traditional industrial development stages, enabling direct adoption of smart manufacturing, improved quality standards, local value addition, and enhanced global competitiveness.

– **The African Alliance for Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing (ESMA)**: Discussion of this collaborative initiative designed to create a knowledge-sharing platform across African countries, with key pillars including capacity building, technology transfer, policy support, and industry use cases.

– **Practical implementation challenges and solutions**: Addressing the need for awareness-raising among policymakers, comprehensive ecosystem mapping, digital transformation roadmaps, and the critical importance of developing local technological expertise rather than simply importing solutions.

– **Upcoming conference and collaboration opportunities**: Announcement of the “Next Generation for Smart Manufacturing in Africa” conference in Morocco (September-October), co-organized by UNIDO, ESMA, and international partners, aimed at bringing together African ministers, international experts, and industry stakeholders.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how Industry 4.0 and smart manufacturing technologies can accelerate structural transformation in African developing countries, presenting concrete initiatives, strategies, and collaborative frameworks to help Africa catch up with and leapfrog traditional industrial development models.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently optimistic and collaborative tone throughout. Speakers demonstrated enthusiasm for Africa’s potential in Industry 4.0 adoption, while acknowledging realistic challenges. The conversation was professional yet passionate, with participants showing genuine commitment to supporting African industrial transformation. The tone became increasingly energetic when discussing concrete initiatives like ESMA and the upcoming Morocco conference, ending on a strongly motivational note emphasizing urgency and opportunity.

Speakers

– **Adel Ben Youssef**: Professor of economics at the University Côte d’Azur, member of the ESMA think tank, session moderator

– **Rafik Feki**: UNIDO representative for Senegal, Togo, Mauritania, Cape Verde, Gambia, and Guinea-Bissau; responsible for digital transformation at UNIDO and implementation of the African Alliance for Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing; previously worked at UNIDO headquarters in Vienna on digital transformation, smart manufacturing, and Industry 4.0 with focus on Africa and Middle East

– **Sama Mbang**: CEO and owner of Digital Transformation Alliance, expert in Industry 4.0 with 25 years of industry experience, professor in Karlsruhe, UNIDO expert for smart manufacturing projects, co-founder of Digital Transformation Alliance supporting Industry 4.0 adoption across Africa

– **Jimson Olufuye**: Principal consultant at Contemporary Consulting Limited based in Abuja, Nigeria; Chair of the advisory council of the Africa-ICT Alliance (private sector organization of ICT associations, companies, and professionals across Africa established in 2012)

– **Participant**: Identified as Amir from Iran (no additional role or expertise mentioned)

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond those in the speakers names list.

# Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing: Accelerating Structural Transformation in Developing Countries

## Executive Summary

This discussion, moderated by Professor Adel Ben Youssef from the University Côte d’Azur and member of ESMA, examined how Industry 4.0 and smart manufacturing technologies can accelerate structural transformation in developing countries, with particular focus on Africa. The session brought together representatives from UNIDO, private sector experts, and regional stakeholders to discuss implementation strategies, challenges, and opportunities for African industrial development through digital transformation.

## Key Participants

**Rafik Feki** – UNIDO representative for Senegal, Cape Verde, Mauritania, Gambia and Guinea-Bissau, who recently began his assignment two weeks prior to the discussion. He brings experience from UNIDO headquarters in Vienna working on digital transformation initiatives.

**Professor Sama Mbang** – CEO and owner of Digital Transformation Alliance and UNIDO expert with 25 years of industry experience in “introducing, developing new technologies in the area of industrialization, manufacturing, and also the digital technologies, AI, digital twin.”

**Jimson Olufuye** – Principal consultant at Contemporary Consulting Limited and Chair of the advisory council of the Africa-ICT Alliance, a private sector organization comprising ICT associations, companies, and professionals across Africa. The Alliance was established in 2012 with six country membership and now operates in 43 African countries.

**Amir (Iran)** – A participant who provided perspectives on South-South cooperation and technology transfer challenges.

## UNIDO’s Approach to Industry 4.0 in Africa

Rafik Feki outlined UNIDO’s comprehensive strategy for supporting Industry 4.0 implementation across Africa, emphasizing the urgency of adoption. “Please don’t consider this as a choice,” Feki stated. “If you want to industrialise your country, let’s do it with the appropriate way. There is no time to be lost. Policymakers have to understand that this is the only way and the only short way to industrialise Africa.”

UNIDO’s approach involves:

– Comprehensive ecosystem assessment covering education, vocational training, finance, and regulatory frameworks

– Policy development support for governments

– Human capital preparation and institutional support

– Collaboration with multiple UN agencies including ITU and UNECA

– Partnership with private sector organizations

Feki emphasized that successful implementation requires a fundamental shift in thinking: “Because we are talking about the fourth industrial revolution. It’s not about adopting a technology, it’s about an industrial revolution. It’s about changing our ways of thinking the industry, of planning the industry.”

UNIDO has initiated programmes in several African countries including Tunisia, Kenya, Cameroon, and Morocco, with plans for broader continental expansion.

## The Leapfrogging Opportunity

Professor Sama Mbang highlighted how Industry 4.0 presents unique opportunities for developing countries to bypass traditional industrial development stages. “Instead of replicating traditional industrial models with their limitations, as we know, we can design smarter, cleaner, and more connected industry from the ground up,” Mbang explained.

Key benefits identified include:

– Enhanced productivity and quality standards necessary for international markets

– Improved local value addition by processing raw materials domestically

– Better supply chain integration and compliance with international standards

– Support for economic diversification beyond traditional sectors

However, Mbang stressed a crucial prerequisite: “The most crucial prerequisite is the capacity to truly master the technologies and processes locally. Because it’s not enough to import advanced machinery or software. Countries need to invest in building local knowledge and expertise.”

## Regional Coordination and Challenges

Jimson Olufuye emphasized the importance of coordination among development partners and raised concerns about current collaboration levels. “There is need for stronger collaboration between UN agencies, particularly UNIDO and UNECA, to achieve SDG targets,” he noted, highlighting potential risks of Africa missing the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 targets.

The Iranian participant added a geopolitical dimension, noting that developing countries’ lack of unity weakens their position in technology transfer negotiations: “Sometimes they are not supporting each other in some views they should get from developed country, as like as in getting finance and getting technology transfer… we should have, I should say, more, more, more solidarity and more common view regarding these issues.”

## The ESMA Alliance

The African Alliance for Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing (ESMA) was presented as a collaborative framework for knowledge-sharing across African countries. Mbang, whose Digital Transformation Alliance supports the initiative, described ESMA as operating on several key pillars including capacity building, technology transfer, policy support, and sharing industry use cases.

The alliance aims to make Industry 4.0 accessible and sustainable for Africa’s diverse economies, recognizing that different countries are at varying stages of industrial development. It serves as a platform for countries to learn from each other’s experiences and coordinate their Industry 4.0 efforts.

## Implementation Challenges

Several key challenges were identified:

**Awareness and Change Management**: Both Feki and Mbang noted the challenge of raising awareness among policymakers who may view their countries as not ready for Industry 4.0 transition.

**Comprehensive Ecosystem Development**: The need for systematic approaches covering education, finance, regulation, and institutional frameworks rather than focusing solely on technology acquisition.

**Local Capacity Building**: The priority of developing local expertise over simply importing advanced equipment.

**Coordination**: The challenge of achieving effective collaboration between different UN agencies and development partners.

## The Morocco Conference

The discussion highlighted an upcoming “Next Generation for Smart Manufacturing in Africa” conference scheduled for the end of September/beginning of October 2024 in Morocco. The event is co-organized by UNIDO, ESMA, the Phosphate company of Morocco (OCP), and Deutsche Messe (German Hannover Fair).

Professor Ben Youssef noted the conference’s significance as a major African smart manufacturing event with international participation, bringing together African ministers, international experts, and industry stakeholders. Organizers committed to ensuring remote participation options for broader African participation.

## Key Takeaways

The discussion revealed strong agreement among participants that:

1. **Industry 4.0 adoption is essential, not optional** for African countries to remain competitive and achieve meaningful industrialization

2. **Comprehensive approaches are necessary**, covering policies, human capital, institutions, and technology transfer rather than narrow technology-focused strategies

3. **Local capacity building is prioritized** over simply importing technology

4. **Multi-stakeholder collaboration is crucial** for successful implementation

5. **Regional cooperation mechanisms** like ESMA are important for sharing costs, risks, and benefits

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated alignment among diverse stakeholders about the importance of Industry 4.0 for African development. While challenges remain around coordination, financing, and capacity building, the collaborative frameworks being developed through initiatives like ESMA and events like the Morocco conference provide promising foundations for coordinated action. The emphasis on local capacity building and comprehensive ecosystem development reflects a sophisticated understanding of sustainable development principles that prioritizes long-term competitiveness over short-term technology acquisition.

Adel Ben Youssef: And welcome to this session. The session is co-organized by ESMA, Alliance for Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing in Africa, UNIDO, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, and the DTA, Digital Transformation Alliance. So the session, we’ll try to challenge the theme of how we can accelerate the structural transformation, especially in developing country, but especially in Africa. And we think that these advanced technology, advanced information technologies, this industry 4.0 revolution, can help Africa and can help developing country to catch up and to leapfrog. And for this, I’m very happy to have my dear friends and experts with me today. Mr. Rafik Fkhie, he is a UNIDO representative nowadays in Senegal, Togo, and Mauritania, and Capo Verde. He is covering the entire region, and he is responsible also of this digital transformation at UNIDO, where he was in charge in the implementation of this alliance, the African Alliance for Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing. I will let Mr. Rafik by himself present himself, and my dear friend Professor Saman Bang, who is CEO and owner of… the Digital Transformation Alliance, but expert for the UNIDO for several projects about smart manufacturing and also professor in Karlsruhe. So let me start by asking you just the first question is to present yourself and how you are in touch with this industry 4.0 and these smart technologies. Sirafic, can you present yourself a little bit for our audience online

Rafik Feki: and offline? Thank you. Thank you, Professor Adel. Thank you for the invitation and good morning to all the participants. It’s a pleasure to be with you for this very important session. My name is Rafik Feki. I am currently UNIDO representative for Senegal, Cappadocia, Mauritania, Gambia and Guinea-Bissau. I just started my assignment two weeks ago, but for many, many years I was working in UNIDO headquarters in Vienna dealing with different topics related to digital transformation, smart manufacturing, industry 4.0 with a special focus on Africa and the Middle East. UNIDO is the specialized United Nations agency dealing with industrial development and with a special focus on the SDG9. SDG9 is the SDG dealing with industrial development, sustainable industrial development and infrastructure. And within my interventions, I will explain to you what UNIDO was doing. the last few years to promote smart manufacturing around the world, especially in the development countries. Thank you again and wishing you a very interesting discussion. Thank you.

Sama Mbang: Thank you very much Sirafiq. Let me go to Professor Samah to present yourself and how you are in touch with these technologies. Yeah, hello everyone. Thank you very much for this important session as well. So my name is Samah Mbah. I’m in my role an expert in Industry 4.0, having been working in industry for 25 years now, introducing, developing new technologies in the area of industrialization, manufacturing, and also the digital technologies, AI, digital twin. And based on this experience, I co-founded the association Digital Transformation Alliance with the mission to support Industry 4.0 adoption across Africa and other developing regions. So we work with governments, businesses, training institutions, and development partners to design strategies, to build skills, and more important, to implement practical projects such as smart factories, such as innovation labs, and digital skill programs. So my personal goal is to help local industries modernize, increase competitiveness, be part of this global challenge to support also the global prosperity. So I’m very happy to attend and then to share more insights.

Adel Ben Youssef: Thank you very much, Professor Sama. My name is Adel Ben Youssef. I’m a professor of economics at the University Côte d’Azur and I’m a member of the ESMA think tank. Let me start by first question to Serafik. Industry 4.0, digitalization are becoming hot topics for Africa and in Africa, and several countries are trying to implement industry 4.0 programs. I know at least Tunisia, Kenya, Cameroon, Morocco, among others. So what is the role of UNIDO and how you are helping these countries?

Rafik Feki: Thank you, Professor Adel. Yes, indeed, there is an increasing interest and motivation from different African countries to adopt smart manufacturing, industry 4.0 technologies. And we are seeing this with a very increasing path and this is bringing a lot of satisfaction for UNIDO because no one now is questioning the importance of the adoption of digital technologies for industry and how it become a pillar for industrial development. And in most of African countries in the recent few years, industry became the main interest of development of the countries and the policymakers in Africa understood very well that adoption of technologies and digital technologies is the only way to be able to reach out and overcome the gap that is existing currently. So we received several requests from different countries. And how you need with addressing those requests, we try usually to come up with a quite comprehensive package and technical assistance. Starting by assessing the existing ecosystem, because if you want to adopt such approach, you have to go with a comprehensive approach. You have to understand how the ecosystem would be ready to adopt those technologies, to support SMEs, to introduce the required changes, and very critical to implement what we call change management. Because if you don’t change the minds at all the levels, it’s extremely difficult to call for such change. Because we are talking about the fourth industrial revolution. It’s not about adopting a technology, it’s about an industrial revolution. It’s about changing our ways of thinking the industry, of planning the industry. So the first element would be to look at the existing ecosystem, then come up with the needed changes in terms of policies, in terms of regulation, because these might apply a lot of changes on the regulation, when you talk about information security, when we talk about access to some platforms, etc. there is a lot of work to be done about repairing the human capital. Because advanced technologies, AI, IoT, 3D printing, etc. would require that the human capital is ready to go with the same path. You can bring the technologies, but if you don’t have the technicians and the engineers on the ground, it will be extremely difficult to succeed in such a process. Then, you need as well to come up with the institutions that will be able to support this transformation. And here, for example, Professor Sama is working with UNIDO and Professor Adel as well, and some other experts in implementing what we call smart factories. In Morocco, in Tunisia, we got some requests from other countries, like South Africa. Only yesterday I was in a meeting with a minister here in Senegal, and he as well expressed the same request that we consider this entity as a pivotal entity to facilitate this transformation. Then, there is a lot of work to be done at the enterprise level. And here, we are talking about the support that we are bringing for those enterprises to acquire the technologies, to acquire the know-how, and to link them to… to some other network and some other companies so they can exchange experience, they can learn, and they can build together a new way of designing their production, selling their products, et cetera. So those are the different elements that you need to be trying to build. Of course, beyond the country level interventions, we are trying as well to come up with some comprehensive initiatives. You need to be co-organizing with the Swiss Smart Factory every year, the International Smart Manufacturing Summit, where we are bringing all the countries to come and exchange experiences and knowledge about smart manufacturing. I think we are talking as well about ESMA, the African, the Alliance for Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing in Africa, where you both, Professor Shama and Dr. Adel, are part of it. So that’s an initiative supported as well by UNIDO. And those are just examples for what we are trying to bring to our member states to promote Industry 4.0 and smart manufacturing. Thank you.

Adel Ben Youssef: Thank you so much, Sirafiq. I remind that Sirafiq is in charge of several countries, including Senegal, Togo, Mauritania, Capo Verde, and Gambia for UNIDO. He’s a representative of UNIDO there and he’s responsible also for smart manufacturing in Africa. Let me move to Professor Sama and I would like to welcome the attendees, the last ones to this session. Professor Sama is… on the ground, already consultant in two big projects in Africa, in Tunisia and Morocco, implementing this smart manufacturing. So, Professor Sama, what are the real opportunities? We are seeing that there are opportunities, and you are on the ground. So, let me discuss these opportunities. You are muted. Unmute yourself, please.

Sama Mbang: Yeah, exactly. Thank you very much for this also important question. I mean, we talk a lot about Industry 4.0, of course, that we can leapfrog all the steps. But as Sarah Frick said, Industry 4.0 represents a transformative opportunity for developing countries. Because it’s about reimagining, to reimagine, let’s say, the economy in the 21st century. Of course, it allows us to leapfrog outdated and inefficient production systems by adopting these advanced digital and sustainable technologies. Instead of replicating traditional industrial models with their limitations, as we know, we can design smarter, cleaner, and more connected industry from the ground. For businesses, this means, of course, increased productivity through automation and data-driven decision-making, very key. It improves also quality and consistency. If you want to export your products, you have to demonstrate that you respect all of the quality rules and processes. And it enables developing countries to meet international standards. That is very important to access new markets or global markets. Because one of the key limitations in developing countries is that their products, semi-finished or finished, are not always at the level of the international standards. Industry 4.0 helps, therefore, to enhance traceability and transparency, which is crucial, as we said, if they want to export with compliance in a global value chain. And, of course, Industry 4.0, with these technologies, helps developing countries and businesses to reduce production costs over time by optimising also topics such as energy and waste. For the entire economy, if we speak about the regions, it creates the possibility of local value addition. Instead of exporting only raw materials and importing finished goods, countries can process and manufacture more locally. It can be the first step or the second step, and then export for the first step, it depends. But we can have more local value addition, retaining in this way greater economic value and creating skilled employment opportunities. And, on the other hand, it also strengthens supply chain resilience, which became an urgent priority after recent disruptions we faced with COVID and so on. By adopting digital tools for logistics, for example, and inventory management, businesses can better respond to market changes and reduce dependence on imports. Moreover, Industry 4.0 supports economic diversification. as well, helping countries move beyond commodity dependence into manufacturing, technology, services, and even digital exports. It can also play a role of smart urban development, supporting better infrastructure planning, resource management, and service delivery, for example, through smart city solutions. So in short, as we heard also before for Mr. Rafik, Industry 4.0 is not just about technology. It’s about structural transformation. It’s an opportunity to build more inclusive, sustainable, and competitive economies that create jobs, strengthen sovereignty as well, and improve the quality of life of people.

Adel Ben Youssef: Thank you so much, Professor Sama. Before going further in the discussion and to deep dive on this, I would like to ask the attendees if you have any question of clarification, if you want to ask anything about what happened. So let it be more interactive, and then we move to the other questions. Please.

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you, Prof. Thank you very much for the presentation. My name is Jim Sindu Lufuye. I’m the principal consultant at Contemporary Consulting Limited based in Abuja, Nigeria. And I’m also the chair of the advisory council of the Africa-ICT Alliance, a private sector concern that is made up of ICT associations, companies, and other professionals across Africa. We established in 2012 with six country membership, and now we’re in 43 African countries. And we’re projecting by 2030, we can cover the rest of Africa. So I want to comment. proof for the efforts you made in the smart manufacturing setup you did, which is very important. And also to ask this question to Mr. Serafik of UNEDO. Yes, I’m really impressed with what I heard UNEDO is focused on doing, but it’s only UNECA that we have been seeing more and has reached out to us to work more with us with regard to development across Africa. And Industry 4.0 is very critical, so important. So are you in collaboration with UNECA? Are you working together to help African countries to leapfrog in this Industry 4.0? And then also to note that we are targeting Sustainable Development Goals 2030. We’re in WSIS. WSIS is about using WSIS Action Line targets to achieve SDG. So how can we achieve this SDG in Africa? We missed Millennial Development Goals. Will we still miss Sustainable Development Goals? Those are the two questions.

Adel Ben Youssef: Thank you so much, and let’s be interactive. So you can address these questions, and then we can go further on my questions after. Serafik?

Rafik Feki: Yeah, thank you very much for the question. Of course, we are collaborating with several partners from UN like ITU. There are several initiatives. Maybe you have already the chance to collaborate with UNECA, but for example, we are collaborating with ITU. You know that ITU have has established a few years ago an alliance for innovation as well and UNIDO is part of this alliance. We’re collaborating with the private sector. We did as well have a small collaboration with UNICA to run some awareness sessions in some regions. You know that UNICA is working on a regional basis. For the consultancy in Africa, we are in touch with the African chapter of the World Association of Engineering. Maybe this will be discussed later. The ESMA alliance that I mentioned so far earlier is going to organize its first conference in almost two months. Ten weeks in Morocco. So that’s a call as well for all the participants to join this conference where we are bringing all our partners from the international and African community. We are talking with AUDANIPAD. So we are collaborating with several partners to promote Industry 4.0 and smart manufacturing. You know digital transformation is covering different angles. So we are really targeting the smart manufacturing, the industrial angle in view of our specialized mandate while some other UN agencies are dealing with the digital transformation from different topics and different angles. So again, I think everybody will have a specific role to play in this area and all what is done by UNICA, by UNDP, by FAO, by all the UN and non-UN

Adel Ben Youssef: partners is contributing to achieving the SDGs. Thank you so much Serafik. Perhaps Sama, interacting? You are in mute Sama. Unmute yourself. Sorry, yes. Yeah, I think

Sama Mbang: as Serafik said, especially in this ISMA group we’ll talk about, this is a very good opportunity to connect different key stakeholders and actors in driving common efforts in this N2C 4.0 adoption. So that, as he said, less staying in touch and then especially during the next conference in Morocco in September, it will be a great opportunity at least for Africa to see exactly what are the key stakeholders and how to build a resilient, let’s say, ecosystem. And of course, this will also be a very good opportunity to connect with other developing countries or regions.

Adel Ben Youssef: Thank you so much, Sama, Professor Sama. Let me move to Serafik. You are helping countries, we know that the digital technologies and this industry, smart industry, need regulation policies and in order to take advantage of this technology. So what are you doing in matter of policies, regulation, standards? like this with the UNIDO in order to help the countries? And let me say, what is the agenda for UNIDO in Africa for the next years, if you have some announcement to make here? Given the timing, I would like that short answer in order to be interactive with the president at the end.

Rafik Feki: Thank you. Thank you for the question. I think that’s a big, let me be frank, that’s a big challenge because talking to some ministers, some policymakers in some countries in Africa, sometimes, I mentioned some countries where this element is brought to the priority, the higher priority level. But in some other countries, when you talk about smart manufacturing and transformation, the answer would be that our industry is still maybe at the stage of the second or the third industrial revolution, how we want to bring them to the fourth industrial revolution. So, there is a lot of work to be done on awareness raising. And my point is usually, please don’t consider this as a choice. If you want to industrialize your country, let’s do it with the appropriate way. There is no time to be lost. Policymakers have to understand that this is the only way and the only short way to industrialize Africa. And that’s why we are doing a lot of awareness raising efforts and change management element to bring this dimension and to clarify how important is and this intelligent technologies and digital technologies for industry. The second element is we are trying as well to work on assessing the different ecosystems when we talk about assessing and mapping ecosystems and considering the complexity of this element, we try usually to look at this from several dimensions, not only from the current situation of industry and technology adoption, it goes to looking at the education system, the national education system, it goes as well to understand the vocational training system, it goes to look at the financial element because it’s critical to ensure access to finance to those technologies, the regulation and all the incentive, the existing incentive schemes, so the mapping is an essential element that help us and this is the third element to develop what we call the digital transformation roadmap and this defines the main milestones that need to be implemented on a country level or on a regional level to understand and to adopt those technologies. So that’s in short, the policy level intervention that we are trying to… promote within our interventions. Our plans is to duplicate and replicate this intervention to the maximum number of African countries in the five next years. And this is the idea behind establishing ESMA is really to establish a platform that would help to create a benchmark and motivate all the countries to come together and move together for the ones which didn’t start this process yet. And ESMA, the philosophy behind ESMA was let’s develop a think tank that would enable the countries that didn’t make start any action to learn from the others and then we can bring this change to the maximum number of countries and that’s why when we thought about ESMA we said let’s do it in partnership with the African Union and with some other continental operators like the African Development Bank and others and that would be our comprehensive answer to tackle this element. Thank you.

Adel Ben Youssef: Thank you so much, Sir Rafiq. Sama, ESMA was mentioned by Sir Rafiq, so what are you doing and how you are helping the countries and let me talk a little bit about and how to join because we have people in the room and how to interact with ESMA.

Sama Mbang: Thank you very much, but you can hear me, right? It’s okay. It’s okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you very much to allow me to talk about ISMA. So ISMA, first of all, stands for the African Alliance for Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing for Africa. It’s an initiative designed to support Industry 4.0 and more consistently is about implementing smart manufacturing in Africa. As you know that for a lot of people, a lot of countries in regions, let’s say the economic or commercial balance is negative. They import more than they export because there is no real, let’s say, local value addition. And the local value addition comes from a productive ecosystem from industries and at least from manufacturing. That’s why we think that manufacturing and completely smart manufacturing, meaning that using advanced digital solutions will help developing countries increase their production capacity to be able to be in the, let’s say, in the global ecosystem and the global market. Concretely, the role is then to build a collaborative ecosystem where best practices, experiences and resources are shared. among countries and industries. ASMA has defined key pillars that includes capacity building, that means training programs to develop, let’s say, skills professionals in N2C 4.0, technologies and processes, including also technology transfer and localization, because it’s about adapting these advanced technologies to local needs and context. These pillars include also policy support and partnership development. So concretely, we have the pillar of industry use cases, where we discuss together what are the key industry use cases, country by country or region by region, that are very important. And then the second pillar is about technologies, where we develop technologies, where we talk about how to master these technologies, how to adapt these technologies to local needs. The third pillar is about training, as already said, it’s about, let’s say, creating advanced training environment to allow regions, businesses to get, let’s say, first knowledge, also remotely using techniques like virtual reality or augmented reality. And then also very important, pillar regarding policy supports to help government design strategies, incentives and regulations that enable smart manufacturing. So the aim is to make industry 4.0, and as we said, more smart manufacturing, accessible, relevant and sustainable for Africa’s diverse economies.

Adel Ben Youssef: Thank you so much, Professor Sama. Thank you so much, Professor Rafiq. Let me interact with the room if someone wants to pose a question or to interact. Any remark and a question request, please go ahead.

Participant: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Is your name? I’m Amir from Iran. Thank you. Thank you so much for this convening, this I should say side event. And thank you for our panelists for giving the insight regarding development. Development is a real issue for, you know, developing countries, and it has been discussed in many forums. But unfortunately, what I have seen in my experience in involving in the, I should say, United Nations forums, mostly in any forums that there was developing country as developed country, both of them, what I have seen, unfortunately, is that the view of the developing country in some cases is not the same. And sometimes they are not supporting each other in some views they should get from developed country, as like as in getting finance and getting technology transfer. They are the important issue we are trying to put in the document in United Nations system. And we should have, I should say, more, more, more solidarity and more common view regarding these issues, especially in the field of technology transfer, and also in the financial mechanism that we should ask from developed countries who they are mostly use, I should say, the resources from developing countries to develop earlier than us. Is the case for the, sorry to interrupt, for the smart manufacturing? for this kind of technology, really? Yeah, I should say, I’m talking in general, general developing issues. So I would urge everybody to be supportive in this field. Thank

Adel Ben Youssef: you. Thank you. So the point is well noted to support for this initiative for technology transfer and for the financial mechanism. So any other questions? Yeah, please. Yes, this event coming up in September, I think is an important event. Would that be remote participation? Because you know, Africa is diverse and you want to get more people to be there. You need to make provision for virtual participation. Professor Sama, if you want to, are we going to make some session remotely or can we have the access remotely to the conference in Morocco? It will be, of course, one of the biggest conference and the first about smart manufacturing. Are we planning to do so? In all cases, we are going to, we are in the organizing committee. So we will try to ensure that at least participation remotely can be ensured. Other comments, questions? Otherwise, I will, please, feel free if you want. No. So the last comment or two minutes, the last minute for the last minute for yourself, Sama. Message, key message from this session to the audience.

Rafik Feki: Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Professor. Yeah, maybe 30 minutes to, 30 seconds, not minutes. Sorry, 30 seconds. Yes. For the conference in Morocco, that would be. It’s called Next Generation for Smart Manufacturing in Africa. We are inviting all the operators around the world to share experience, like Hannover Fair, Hannover Messe, inside the owner of Siri, and all our partners, Swiss Smart Factory, and some people from Malaysia, Singapore. So we are trying, really, to bring the best experiences to share them with Africa. Of course, we are inviting all the ministers of industry and digital transformation from African countries. It’s co-organized with the Fosfate company of Morocco, OCP, and the Deutsche Messe, the German Hannover Fair. And it’s taking place end of September, beginning of October. Yes, all the logistics will be taken as well to consider online participation. So we are going to announce and to promote, we are finalizing the last touches, and we are going to promote the details about the conference and the agenda. ESMA is, of course, a co-organizer, as UNIDO initiative, with all its experts. And I think that would be a very, very important event for smart manufacturing for Africa. The last word, again, digital transformation and smart manufacturing is not a choice for Africa. We have to play the game. We have to adopt the approach, and we have to take it as seriously as we can. as fast as we can every day is bringing a new change. We are watching all what is happening now in terms of competition, for instance, for AI and other technologies between the different developed countries. So we should not stay on the side and watch what is going around. We should be part of this change. We should be part of this game as African member states. And UNIDO and a lot of partners are available and are here to support this process. So UNIDO will continue with its network and partners and experts like the two experts we are having today to support member states. And we will bring our part of the change and we stay very optimistic vis-a-vis these existing challenges. Thank you very much for your attendance.

Adel Ben Youssef: Thank you, Seraphic. Last minute, last comment, Sama.

Sama Mbang: Well, thank you very much. Very, very short. And I would like to point one thing is about prerequisites. You know, we always talk about prerequisite like we need a digital infrastructure, we need policies and so on. These are very important. But for me, the most crucial prerequisite is the capacity to truly master the technologies and processes locally. Because it’s not enough to import advanced machinery or software. Countries need to invest in building local knowledge and expertise. And this requires creating strong training environment, best practices. like smart manufacturing schools or labs, as we are working together in Morocco, Tunisia, and so on, are very key to embrace this change, as they connect all the stakeholders to drive in the same direction. So this is what I wanted to point out. This is one of the key points, because digital infrastructure needs technology. So if you don’t master these technologies, you will always import this knowledge in all other prerequisites you will put in place. And EIZMA is ready to support this structural transformation as we talked about. Thank you.

Adel Ben Youssef: Thank you so much, both the two, Serafik, Professor Sama, for your comment, insight, and for sharing this knowledge and recommendations. Yeah, definitely we need cooperation with other country. We need to adopt technology. And technology nowadays is diverse. And we need really intra-cooperation in Africa more. And we need to involve all the people, especially in our conference, next conference. And it’s a start of something. This talk is just a start. It’s just to open some venues. And let we see the future, how we can build it together. So thank you very much. And I will close this session today. And hopefully, we’ll organize many others in the future. Bye, and take care. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. You Recording stopped Recording resumed Recording resumed Recording resumed Recording resumed Recording resumed

Agreement points

Industry 4.0 is essential and not optional for African development

Speakers

– Rafik Feki
– Sama Mbang

Arguments

Industry 4.0 adoption is not optional but necessary for Africa to remain competitive in the global economy

Industry 4.0 allows developing countries to leapfrog outdated production systems and adopt advanced digital technologies from the ground up

Summary

Both speakers strongly emphasize that Industry 4.0 is not a choice but a necessity for African countries to remain competitive and achieve meaningful development. They agree that this represents the only viable path forward for industrialization in Africa.

Topics

Development | Economic

Comprehensive ecosystem approach is required for successful Industry 4.0 implementation

Speakers

– Rafik Feki
– Sama Mbang

Arguments

UNIDO provides comprehensive technical assistance including ecosystem assessment, policy development, human capital preparation, and institutional support

The alliance focuses on four key pillars: capacity building, technology transfer, policy support, and industry use cases

Summary

Both speakers agree that successful Industry 4.0 implementation requires a holistic approach covering multiple dimensions including policies, human capital, institutions, and technology transfer rather than focusing on technology alone.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Local value addition is crucial for economic transformation

Speakers

– Rafik Feki
– Sama Mbang

Arguments

UNIDO provides comprehensive technical assistance including ecosystem assessment, policy development, human capital preparation, and institutional support

Smart manufacturing enables local value addition, reducing dependence on raw material exports and creating skilled employment

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of moving beyond raw material exports to local processing and manufacturing, which creates more economic value and skilled employment opportunities within African countries.

Topics

Economic | Development

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for success

Speakers

– Rafik Feki
– Sama Mbang
– Jimson Olufuye
– Adel Ben Youssef

Arguments

UNIDO collaborates with multiple UN agencies like ITU and UNECA, plus private sector partners to promote smart manufacturing

ESMA serves as a collaborative platform for sharing best practices and resources among African countries

There is need for stronger collaboration between UN agencies, particularly UNIDO and UNECA, to achieve SDG targets

Strong partnerships between governments, businesses, training institutions, and development partners are vital

Summary

All speakers agree that successful Industry 4.0 implementation requires collaboration across multiple stakeholders including UN agencies, governments, private sector, and development partners.

Topics

Development | Economic

Capacity building and local expertise development are fundamental

Speakers

– Rafik Feki
– Sama Mbang

Arguments

Comprehensive ecosystem mapping is essential, covering education, vocational training, finance, and regulatory frameworks

The most crucial prerequisite is building local capacity to master technologies and processes, not just importing equipment

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that building local capacity and expertise is more important than simply importing technology, requiring investment in education, training, and knowledge development.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers view ESMA and similar platforms as crucial mechanisms for knowledge sharing and regional cooperation, enabling African countries to learn from each other and coordinate their Industry 4.0 efforts.

Speakers

– Rafik Feki
– Sama Mbang

Arguments

UNIDO organizes international events like the Smart Manufacturing Summit and supports regional initiatives like ESMA

ESMA serves as a collaborative platform for sharing best practices and resources among African countries

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers advocate for structured, systematic approaches to Industry 4.0 implementation with clear frameworks, milestones, and organized pillars rather than ad-hoc technology adoption.

Speakers

– Rafik Feki
– Sama Mbang

Arguments

Digital transformation roadmaps with clear milestones are necessary for country-level implementation

The alliance focuses on four key pillars: capacity building, technology transfer, policy support, and industry use cases

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers recognize that Industry 4.0 is essential for meeting international standards and global competitiveness, while acknowledging the challenge of convincing policymakers who may feel their countries aren’t ready.

Speakers

– Sama Mbang
– Rafik Feki

Arguments

Digital technologies improve product quality, traceability, and compliance with international standards for global market access

Major challenge exists in raising awareness among policymakers who may view their industries as not ready for Industry 4.0

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Urgency of Industry 4.0 adoption despite perceived readiness gaps

Speakers

– Rafik Feki
– Sama Mbang

Arguments

Major challenge exists in raising awareness among policymakers who may view their industries as not ready for Industry 4.0

Industry 4.0 allows developing countries to leapfrog outdated production systems and adopt advanced digital technologies from the ground up

Explanation

Despite acknowledging that many African countries may feel their industries are still at earlier industrial revolution stages, both speakers unexpectedly agree that this should not delay Industry 4.0 adoption. Instead, they advocate for leapfrogging directly to advanced technologies, which represents a bold consensus on bypassing traditional industrial development stages.

Topics

Development | Economic

Technology mastery over technology acquisition

Speakers

– Sama Mbang
– Rafik Feki

Arguments

The most crucial prerequisite is building local capacity to master technologies and processes, not just importing equipment

UNIDO provides comprehensive technical assistance including ecosystem assessment, policy development, human capital preparation, and institutional support

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus that the focus should be on mastering and adapting technologies locally rather than simply acquiring advanced equipment. This represents a sophisticated understanding that goes beyond the common assumption that importing technology is sufficient for development.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate remarkably high consensus across all major aspects of Industry 4.0 implementation in Africa, including its necessity, comprehensive implementation approaches, the importance of local capacity building, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and regional cooperation through platforms like ESMA.

Consensus level

Very high consensus with strong alignment on strategic approaches and priorities. This high level of agreement among international development experts, regional representatives, and private sector stakeholders suggests a mature understanding of Industry 4.0 challenges and opportunities in Africa. The consensus implies strong potential for coordinated action and successful implementation of Industry 4.0 initiatives across the continent, particularly through the collaborative frameworks being established.

Different viewpoints

Prerequisites for Industry 4.0 implementation

Speakers

– Rafik Feki
– Sama Mbang

Arguments

Comprehensive ecosystem mapping is essential, covering education, vocational training, finance, and regulatory frameworks

The most crucial prerequisite is building local capacity to master technologies and processes, not just importing equipment

Summary

Rafik Feki emphasizes a comprehensive approach covering multiple systemic elements (education, finance, regulation), while Sama Mbang prioritizes local capacity building and technology mastery as the most crucial prerequisite above other infrastructure elements

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus among speakers on the importance and urgency of Industry 4.0 adoption for Africa, with only minor disagreements on implementation priorities and collaboration approaches

Disagreement level

Very low level of disagreement. The speakers were largely aligned on goals and strategies, with differences mainly in emphasis rather than fundamental opposition. The main disagreement was on whether comprehensive ecosystem mapping or local capacity building should be prioritized as the most crucial prerequisite. This low level of disagreement suggests strong consensus in the development community about Industry 4.0’s importance for Africa, which could facilitate coordinated implementation efforts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers view ESMA and similar platforms as crucial mechanisms for knowledge sharing and regional cooperation, enabling African countries to learn from each other and coordinate their Industry 4.0 efforts.

Speakers

– Rafik Feki
– Sama Mbang

Arguments

UNIDO organizes international events like the Smart Manufacturing Summit and supports regional initiatives like ESMA

ESMA serves as a collaborative platform for sharing best practices and resources among African countries

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers advocate for structured, systematic approaches to Industry 4.0 implementation with clear frameworks, milestones, and organized pillars rather than ad-hoc technology adoption.

Speakers

– Rafik Feki
– Sama Mbang

Arguments

Digital transformation roadmaps with clear milestones are necessary for country-level implementation

The alliance focuses on four key pillars: capacity building, technology transfer, policy support, and industry use cases

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers recognize that Industry 4.0 is essential for meeting international standards and global competitiveness, while acknowledging the challenge of convincing policymakers who may feel their countries aren’t ready.

Speakers

– Sama Mbang
– Rafik Feki

Arguments

Digital technologies improve product quality, traceability, and compliance with international standards for global market access

Major challenge exists in raising awareness among policymakers who may view their industries as not ready for Industry 4.0

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Industry 4.0 adoption is essential, not optional, for Africa to achieve structural transformation and remain globally competitive

UNIDO provides comprehensive support through ecosystem assessment, policy development, human capital preparation, and institutional frameworks

Local capacity building and technology mastery are more critical than just importing advanced equipment or software

Industry 4.0 enables developing countries to leapfrog traditional industrial stages and build smarter, cleaner production systems from the ground up

The ESMA Alliance serves as a collaborative platform for African countries to share best practices and coordinate Industry 4.0 implementation

Smart manufacturing can enable local value addition, reduce raw material export dependence, and improve compliance with international standards

Comprehensive ecosystem mapping covering education, finance, regulation, and vocational training is essential for successful implementation

Strong partnerships between governments, businesses, training institutions, and development partners are vital for success

Resolutions and action items

UNIDO will continue expanding Industry 4.0 interventions to maximum number of African countries over the next five years

The first major African smart manufacturing conference will be held in Morocco in late September/early October 2024

Conference organizers will ensure remote participation options are available for broader African participation

ESMA will organize its first conference in Morocco with international partners including Hannover Fair and Swiss Smart Factory

UNIDO will continue promoting awareness and change management efforts among African policymakers

Development of digital transformation roadmaps with clear milestones for country-level implementation will continue

Unresolved issues

How to achieve stronger collaboration and coordination between different UN agencies (UNIDO, UNECA, ITU, etc.) for more effective SDG achievement

Addressing the challenge of policymakers who believe their countries are not ready for Industry 4.0 transition

Securing adequate financial mechanisms and technology transfer support from developed countries

Ensuring developing countries maintain solidarity and common positions in international forums on technology transfer

Bridging the gap between countries at different stages of industrial development within Africa

Specific details and logistics for the upcoming Morocco conference were not fully finalized

Suggested compromises

None identified

Please don’t consider this as a choice. If you want to industrialize your country, let’s do it with the appropriate way. There is no time to be lost. Policymakers have to understand that this is the only way and the only short way to industrialize Africa.

Speaker

Rafik Feki

Reason

This comment reframes Industry 4.0 from an optional upgrade to an existential necessity for African industrialization. It challenges the common assumption that countries must progress sequentially through industrial revolutions and introduces urgency to the discussion.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from discussing ‘how’ to implement Industry 4.0 to ‘why’ it’s unavoidable. It elevated the stakes and provided a compelling rationale that influenced subsequent discussions about policy priorities and resource allocation.

Instead of replicating traditional industrial models with their limitations, as we know, we can design smarter, cleaner, and more connected industry from the ground… Industry 4.0 helps developing countries to enhance traceability and transparency, which is crucial, as we said, if they want to export with compliance in a global value chain.

Speaker

Sama Mbang

Reason

This comment introduces the concept of ‘leapfrogging’ as a strategic advantage rather than just catching up. It connects local industrial development to global market access through quality standards and traceability, showing how Industry 4.0 solves multiple challenges simultaneously.

Impact

This deepened the discussion by linking technological adoption to economic competitiveness and export potential. It moved the conversation beyond internal benefits to external market opportunities, influencing how participants viewed the global implications of local industrial transformation.

Because we are talking about the fourth industrial revolution. It’s not about adopting a technology, it’s about an industrial revolution. It’s about changing our ways of thinking the industry, of planning the industry.

Speaker

Rafik Feki

Reason

This comment fundamentally redefines the scope of the challenge from technical implementation to paradigmatic transformation. It emphasizes that success requires mental model shifts, not just technological upgrades.

Impact

This comment broadened the discussion to include change management, human capital development, and institutional transformation. It influenced subsequent discussions about comprehensive ecosystem approaches and the importance of mindset changes at all levels.

The most crucial prerequisite is the capacity to truly master the technologies and processes locally. Because it’s not enough to import advanced machinery or software. Countries need to invest in building local knowledge and expertise.

Speaker

Sama Mbang

Reason

This challenges the common approach of technology transfer through equipment imports and emphasizes knowledge sovereignty. It identifies a critical gap between having technology and mastering it, introducing the concept of technological dependency vs. technological autonomy.

Impact

This comment redirected the final discussion toward capacity building and local expertise development as the foundation for sustainable Industry 4.0 adoption. It influenced the emphasis on training programs and smart manufacturing labs as essential infrastructure.

Sometimes they are not supporting each other in some views they should get from developed country, as like as in getting finance and getting technology transfer… we should have, I should say, more, more, more solidarity and more common view regarding these issues.

Speaker

Amir (participant from Iran)

Reason

This comment introduces a critical geopolitical dimension often overlooked in technical discussions. It highlights how developing countries’ lack of unity weakens their negotiating position for technology transfer and financing, adding a strategic cooperation element to the conversation.

Impact

This intervention broadened the scope to include international relations and South-South cooperation strategies. It influenced the discussion toward collective bargaining power and solidarity among developing nations as prerequisites for successful Industry 4.0 adoption.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally elevated the discussion from a technical implementation conversation to a strategic transformation dialogue. Rafik Feki’s urgency framing and paradigm shift emphasis established Industry 4.0 as an existential imperative rather than an optional upgrade. Sama Mbang’s leapfrogging concept and local mastery emphasis provided both the strategic rationale and the practical foundation for sustainable adoption. The Iranian participant’s solidarity comment added crucial geopolitical context often missing from technical discussions. Together, these comments created a multi-dimensional framework encompassing technological, economic, political, and social transformation aspects. The discussion evolved from ‘what is Industry 4.0’ to ‘why it’s unavoidable’ to ‘how to achieve technological sovereignty’ to ‘how developing countries can cooperate strategically.’ This progression created a comprehensive understanding that influenced the session’s conclusion emphasizing cooperation, local capacity building, and the upcoming Morocco conference as a platform for collective action.

How can UNIDO better collaborate with UNECA and other UN agencies to avoid duplication and maximize impact in Industry 4.0 initiatives across Africa?

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Explanation

This addresses the need for better coordination among UN agencies working on digital transformation and Industry 4.0 in Africa to ensure comprehensive coverage and avoid overlapping efforts.

Will Africa miss the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 targets like it did with the Millennium Development Goals, and how can Industry 4.0 help achieve these targets?

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Explanation

This raises concerns about Africa’s track record in meeting international development goals and seeks to understand how Industry 4.0 can be leveraged to ensure SDG achievement by 2030.

How can developing countries achieve better solidarity and common positions on technology transfer and financial mechanisms from developed countries?

Speaker

Amir from Iran

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of developing countries not always supporting each other in negotiations with developed countries for technology transfer and financing, which is crucial for smart manufacturing adoption.

What are the specific details, agenda, and logistics for remote participation in the upcoming Next Generation Smart Manufacturing conference in Morocco?

Speaker

Unnamed participant

Explanation

This seeks practical information about accessing the important upcoming conference, recognizing that virtual participation is needed to ensure broader African participation given the continent’s diversity and travel constraints.

How can countries build local capacity to truly master Industry 4.0 technologies and processes rather than just importing them?

Speaker

Sama Mbang

Explanation

This addresses the critical need for developing local expertise and knowledge rather than remaining dependent on imported technology and external expertise, which is essential for sustainable Industry 4.0 adoption.

What specific financial mechanisms and incentive schemes are most effective for supporting SMEs in adopting Industry 4.0 technologies?

Speaker

Implied from Rafik Feki’s discussion

Explanation

While mentioned as important, the specific details of how to ensure access to finance for Industry 4.0 adoption by SMEs was not fully explored and requires further research.

How can the assessment and mapping of national ecosystems for Industry 4.0 readiness be standardized across African countries?

Speaker

Implied from Rafik Feki’s discussion

Explanation

The complexity of assessing readiness across multiple dimensions (education, vocational training, finance, regulation) suggests need for standardized methodologies that can be applied consistently across different African contexts.

Summary

The WSIS Plus 20 Forum focused on strengthening digital governance and international cooperation to build an inclusive digital future, bringing together representatives from governments, international organizations, enterprises, and think tanks. The Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies hosted the event, emphasizing the need for collaborative approaches to address emerging technology challenges and opportunities. Opening remarks highlighted four key principles: seizing AI opportunities for high-quality development, maintaining innovation and openness to ensure digital dividends reach all humanity, enhancing mutual trust to address security risks, and encouraging multi-stakeholder participation in global digital governance.

Dr. Francis Gurry identified two major governance challenges posed by digital technologies: the unprecedented speed of technological adoption and increasing complexity of emerging technologies like AI, quantum computing, and 5G. He noted the growing lag between technology deployment and regulatory responses, citing the example of AI training on copyrighted data as a divisive issue requiring international coordination. Thomas Basikolo from ITU presented the AI for Good initiative, showcasing projects like “Innovate for Impact” and “Innovation Factory” that develop AI solutions for healthcare, education, and climate action while addressing challenges such as energy consumption and the digital divide.

China Mobile’s representative shared practical examples of 5G-AI integration, including building 2.5 million base stations and developing multi-modal AI models for various industries. However, speakers acknowledged significant challenges including uneven global digital infrastructure development, insufficient integration capabilities in traditional industries, and AI talent shortages. The discussion emphasized that international cooperation through organizations like ITU, BRICS, and UN frameworks is essential for creating inclusive digital governance that ensures no one is left behind in the digital transformation.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Speed and Complexity Challenges in Digital Governance**: The rapid pace of technological innovation (exemplified by ChatGPT reaching 1 million users in 3 days vs. Netflix’s 3.5 years) and increasing complexity of emerging technologies are outpacing traditional governance frameworks, creating regulatory gaps and enforcement challenges.

– **AI Applications and Infrastructure Development**: Focus on leveraging AI and 5G technologies for societal benefit through initiatives like ITU’s “AI for Good” platform, China Mobile’s massive infrastructure deployment (2.5 million 5G base stations), and capacity building programs, particularly targeting developing countries and underserved communities.

– **Digital Divide and Inclusive Development**: Addressing the uneven global distribution of digital infrastructure and capabilities, with emphasis on international cooperation to ensure marginalized communities, especially in Africa and developing nations, are not left behind in the digital transformation.

– **International Cooperation Frameworks**: Discussion of various governance models including the BRICS cooperation mechanism, UN-based initiatives, and the need for multi-stakeholder approaches that balance innovation with regulation while fostering global collaboration on digital policies.

– **Sustainability and Resource Challenges**: Concerns about the environmental impact of digital technologies, including massive energy consumption by AI data centers and the need for critical minerals (potentially 500 times more demand by 2060), highlighting the tension between technological advancement and environmental sustainability.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to strengthen global digital governance mechanisms and promote international cooperation for building an inclusive digital future, specifically focusing on how emerging technologies can be harnessed for societal benefit while addressing governance challenges and ensuring equitable access across all nations and communities.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and optimistic tone throughout, with speakers emphasizing partnership, shared responsibility, and collective action. While acknowledging significant challenges (digital divides, regulatory gaps, environmental concerns), the tone remained constructive and solution-oriented, with participants sharing concrete examples of successful international cooperation and expressing commitment to working together toward common goals.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Zhiqiang Lin** – From the Data and Technical Support Center of Cyberspace Administration of China (Forum moderator/host)

– **Jiang Bai** – Deputy Director General of Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies, representative of the forum organizers

– **Francis Gurry** – Vice Chair of the World Internet Conference, former Director-General of WIPO

– **Thomas Basikolo** – Program Coordinator of the ITU Telecom Communication Standardization Bureau, works in the AI for Good team

– **Yuhong Huang** – General Manager of China Mobile Research Institute

– **Ke Gong** – Executive Director of Chinese Institute of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Strategy, former President of World Federal of Engineering Organization

– **Torbjorn Fredriksson** – Head of the Economical and Digital Economy branch at the UN Trade and Development

– **Wolfgang Kleinwaechter** – Professor Emeritus of University of Aarhus, Denmark

– **Luca Belli** – Director of the CyberBRICS Project at FGV Law School, Professor at FGV Law School where he directs the Center for Technology and Society (participated via video)

**Additional speakers:**

None – all speakers who participated in the discussion were included in the provided speakers names list.

# WSIS Plus 20 Forum: Strengthening Digital Governance and International Cooperation for an Inclusive Digital Future

## Executive Summary

The WSIS Plus 20 Forum brought together representatives from governments, international organisations, enterprises, and think tanks to address the critical challenges of digital governance in an era of rapid technological advancement. Hosted by the Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies, the forum emphasised the urgent need for collaborative approaches to harness emerging technologies whilst ensuring equitable access and sustainable development. The discussion revealed both significant consensus on the need for international cooperation and notable disagreements on regulatory approaches and development priorities.

## Opening Framework and Key Principles

The forum was moderated by **Zhiqiang Lin** from the Data and Technical Support Centre of Cyberspace Administration of China, with **Bai Jiang**, Deputy Director General of Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies, representing the forum organisers. Bai established four foundational principles that guided the discussion: seizing AI opportunities for high-quality development, maintaining innovation and openness to ensure digital dividends reach all humanity, enhancing mutual trust to address security risks, and encouraging multi-stakeholder participation in global digital governance.

These principles reflected a broader vision of the internet as “a shared home of humanity” requiring collective responsibility for creating a clean, safe, and prosperous digital space. Bai highlighted China’s implementation of the Global AI Governance Initiative and extended invitations to participate in the 2025 World Internet Conference Wuzhen Summit, noting that “friendship is the only ship that never sinks,” quoting Karl Spitaler.

## The Governance Challenge: Speed and Complexity

**Dr Francis Gurry**, Vice Chair of the World Internet Conference and former Director-General of WIPO, provided a compelling framework for understanding contemporary digital governance challenges. He identified two fundamental issues: the unprecedented speed of technological adoption and the increasing complexity of emerging technologies like AI, quantum computing, and 5G networks.

Drawing on Arthur Conan Doyle’s observation that “knowledge begets knowledge as money bears interest,” Gurry illustrated the acceleration of technological adoption with concrete metrics. He noted that Netflix took three and a half years to reach one million users in 1999, Facebook required 13 months in 2004, whilst ChatGPT achieved the same milestone in just three days in 2022. This exponential acceleration is creating an ever-widening gap between technology deployment and regulatory responses.

The complexity challenge was equally significant, with Gurry observing that whilst we intuitively understand that innovation is quickening from our daily experiences, “we don’t really have a good measure of it.” He cited the ongoing controversy over AI training on copyrighted data as an example of how new technologies create divisive issues requiring international coordination, noting that 46 lawsuits are currently pending in the United States alone, reflecting “bitter divisions” between technology and cultural communities. This represents what he called “a classic case for international intervention.”

## AI for Good: Practical Applications and Global Initiatives

**Thomas Basikolo**, Program Coordinator of the ITU Telecom Communication Standardisation Bureau working in the AI for Good team, presented practical applications of technology for addressing global challenges. He outlined the AI for Good initiative, which serves as a platform for cross-sector collaboration aimed at leveraging artificial intelligence for societal benefit.

Basikolo highlighted specific programmes including “Innovate for Impact” and “Innovation Factory,” which develop AI solutions for healthcare, education, and climate action whilst addressing challenges such as energy consumption and the digital divide. These initiatives focus particularly on supporting local talent and entrepreneurship in developing countries, with concrete examples of capacity building programmes that have shown success in various regions.

The AI for Good approach represents a practical framework for ensuring that technological advancement serves inclusive development goals. Basikolo emphasised the importance of AI readiness frameworks to help countries prepare for digital transformation, acknowledging that whilst AI offers tremendous potential, it also presents challenges including massive energy consumption and the need for environmental standards to address e-waste and emissions.

## Infrastructure Development and Industry Integration

**Yuhong Huang**, General Manager of China Mobile Research Institute, provided insights into large-scale infrastructure deployment and its role in enabling digital transformation. China Mobile has built what Huang described as the world’s largest 5G network, with 2.5 million base stations, alongside significant AI computing infrastructure including 43 EFLOPs computing capacity, IPv6 barrier network, and 40-gigabit optical network to enable AICT (AI integrated with communication and IT technology infrastructure) development.

This infrastructure investment has yielded practical results, with over 50,000 5G use cases developed across vertical industries including healthcare, manufacturing, and smart cities. Huang noted the emergence of “new three products” – AI-embedded devices, intelligent electronic vehicles, and robots – replacing traditional consumer electronics like TV, refrigerator, and washing machine.

Through China Mobile’s Intelligence Integration Index (MI3) research conducted with Omedia and GTI, they identified several persistent challenges: uneven global digital infrastructure development, insufficient integration capabilities between AICT technologies and traditional industries, and shortage of AI talent limiting digital transformation. Huang also highlighted international partnerships including the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Framework and joint laboratory with Cinemas group in Indonesia.

## Global Economic Perspectives and Sustainability Concerns

**Torbjörn Fredriksson**, Head of the Economic and Digital Economy branch at UN Trade and Development, provided a sobering analysis of the economic and environmental implications of digital transformation. His presentation included striking statistics that reframed the discussion around questions of global equity and sustainability.

Fredriksson noted that six major American technology companies have a combined market capitalisation of almost $17 trillion, which is six times greater than the total GDP of the African continent and 57 times more than all official development assistance provided by OECD countries. This comparison highlighted the extraordinary concentration of digital wealth and power.

The environmental challenges were equally concerning. Fredriksson explained the evolution of resource intensity in communication devices: smartphones in the 1960s required 10 elements from the periodic table, mobile phones in 1990 used 27 elements, whilst modern smartphones require 63 elements – more than half of all known elements. He projected that AI data centres are expected to consume more electricity than all energy-intensive industries combined in the United States, whilst demand for platinum group minerals could increase 500 times by 2060.

These statistics raised fundamental questions about the sustainability of current digital development trajectories and whether it is possible to obtain necessary minerals and metals “without sacrificing the world.”

## Governance Frameworks and International Cooperation Models

**Professor Wolfgang Kleinwaechter**, Professor Emeritus of University of Aarhus, Denmark, brought historical perspective and definitional clarity to the governance discussion. As a former member of the United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance with a mandate from Kofi Annan, Kleinwaechter emphasised the need for clear understanding of what constitutes governance in the digital age.

He outlined three elements of internet governance established 20 years ago: the multi-stakeholder approach involving governments, international organisations, businesses, academia, and civil society; the collaborative approach with shared principles, norms, and decision-making procedures; and the holistic approach covering both technical and policy layers. This framework, rooted in UN precedent, provided conceptual grounding for understanding governance challenges across different technologies and contexts.

Kleinwaechter advocated for political frameworks such as AI declarations rather than legally binding instruments at the global level, whilst maintaining that legally binding documents might be more appropriate at regional levels. This approach recognised the complexity of governing rapidly evolving technologies whilst maintaining flexibility for effective international cooperation.

## Global South Leadership and BRICS Cooperation

**Professor Luca Belli**, Director of the CyberBRICS Project at FGV Law School, participated via video to highlight the increasingly important role of Global South countries in shaping international digital policies. He emphasised BRICS as a significant “club governance mechanism” that facilitates cooperation among Global South nations on digital policy issues.

Belli noted that the first global cybercrime treaty was “lobbied intensely by several BRICS members” and “brokered also with the very important help of Brazilian diplomacy,” demonstrating Global South engagement in digital governance. Under the Brazilian BRICS presidency, there is a focus on strengthening Global South cooperation for inclusive and sustainable governance, with a commitment to create a global data framework for legal interoperability among member states.

This perspective highlighted a shift from traditional North-South dynamics in international governance, recognising emerging economies as key drivers of digital policy innovation.

## Engineering and Capacity Building Perspectives

**Ke Gong**, Executive Director of Chinese Institute of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Strategy and former President of World Federation of Engineering Organisations, provided insights into practical capacity building approaches, particularly highlighting the UN General Assembly resolution “Enhancing the International Collaboration on Capacity Building of Artificial Intelligence.”

Gong detailed successful engineering capacity building programmes in Africa, specifically describing a Kenya pilot program involving 50 engineers from Kenya Power, Kenya Railway, and 10+ industrial companies. The five-day program was described by participants as “eye-opening, enlightening, engaging, exciting,” demonstrating how targeted capacity building initiatives can create sustainable foundations for digital development in emerging economies.

## Areas of Consensus and Continuing Challenges

The forum revealed strong consensus on several key principles. All speakers agreed that international cooperation is essential for effective digital governance, with unanimous support for multistakeholder approaches involving multiple types of organisations and communities. There was also agreement that digital technologies must serve inclusive development and bridge digital divides rather than exacerbate existing inequalities.

The speed and complexity of technological change creating significant governance challenges was universally acknowledged, with all speakers recognising that traditional governance mechanisms struggle to keep pace with rapid innovation cycles. Notably, there was also strong consensus on environmental sustainability concerns, despite the forum’s focus on promoting digital technologies.

However, significant disagreements emerged on specific approaches. The most notable concerned regulatory mechanisms, with Gurry emphasising the need for international cooperation to address regulatory gaps, whilst Kleinwaechter specifically advocated against legally binding instruments at the global level, preferring political frameworks and declarations.

Different speakers also emphasised different priorities: Basikolo highlighted the benefits of AI through initiatives like AI for Good, whilst Fredriksson focused on environmental costs and unsustainable resource consumption. Similarly, Huang emphasised building massive infrastructure and expanding capabilities, whilst Fredriksson highlighted the problematic concentration of digital wealth and power.

## Future Commitments and Action Items

The forum generated several concrete commitments for future action. The Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies committed to hosting forums at the 2025 World Internet Conference Wuzhen Summit, with global think tanks contributing papers on building communities with shared future in cyberspace. The release of the 9th annual World Internet Development Report will present the latest achievements on global internet development and governance.

International cooperation initiatives will continue, including expansion of AI for Good programmes and engineering capacity building programmes in Africa following successful pilots. The development of AI readiness frameworks to help countries prepare for digital transformation represents another concrete outcome, whilst BRICS committed to creating a global data framework for legal interoperability among member states under the Brazilian presidency.

## Implications for Future Digital Governance

The forum revealed both the promise and complexity of international cooperation on digital governance. The strong consensus on the need for inclusive, sustainable, and collaborative approaches provides a foundation for future cooperation, whilst disagreements on specific mechanisms highlight the challenges of translating broad agreement into concrete policy actions.

The recognition of Global South leadership and the importance of environmental sustainability represents a maturing of digital governance discussions beyond purely technical considerations. The emphasis on practical capacity building and concrete applications demonstrates a shift towards implementation-focused approaches.

The discussion ultimately reinforced that digital governance is not merely a technical challenge but a fundamental question of how humanity will shape its technological future to serve the common good whilst preserving essential values and ensuring sustainable development for all. The combination of global cooperation with local needs-based approaches appears to offer the most promising path forward for addressing the complex challenges of governing digital transformation in an interconnected world.

Zhiqiang Lin: Okay, it’s time. Let’s get started. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, good morning, everyone. I’m Lin Zhiqiang from the Data and Technical Support Center of Cyberspace Administration of China. Welcome to the WSIS Plus 430 Forum, hosted by the Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies, focusing on strengthening digital governance and international cooperation of an inclusive digital future. We have convened global representatives from governments, international organizations, enterprises, and think tanks to deliberate critical topics, applications, and challenges of emerging technologies in building an information society, global digital governance mechanisms, and international cooperation. Our goal is to collectively advance the capacity building in digital governance, promote AI 5G adoption, and foster global digital cooperation. Now, let’s get started. First, I’m delighted to invite Mr. Bai Jiang, representative of the forum organizers, and Deputy Director General of Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies, to deliver opening remarks. Bai Jiang Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

Jiang Bai: good morning. It’s an honor and pleasure to gather with you in Geneva, the city of peace. On behalf of the Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies, I warmly welcome all participants to this WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event Forum. Our discussions will focus on strengthening digital governance and international cooperation for a closer digital future. The Internet is a shared home of all humanity. It is the common responsibility of the international community to make this home cleaner, safer, and more prosperous. As WSIS Plus 20 marks a significant milestone from the perspective of a think tank, I would like to share some observations on how to strengthen digital governance and international cooperation. First, we should seize the opportunities presented by AI to advance high-quality development of the information society. We must proactively embrace these historical opportunities, continue to deepen the integration of AI with real-world applications, and fully unleash expectations to empower economic and social progress so as to jointly build a smarter, more efficient, and brighter future for humanity. Second, we should stay committed to innovation and openness to ensure digital dividends are enjoyed by all humanity. China is actively implementing the Global AI Governance Initiative, providing more public goods to the international community by translating divisions through openness. We advocate for global sharing of AI. of Air Research Research. By narrowing the digital divide, we can enable our countries to share in the dividends of digital progress and work together to build an inclusive, equitable, and sustainable digital future. Second, third, we should enhance mutual trust, dialogue, and exchange to jointly address security risks and challenges, so as to maintain a peaceful, secure, open, cooperative, and orderly cyberspace. Fourth, we should encourage active participation from all parties and work together to build a global digital governance system. In the face of growing digital divides, lacking essential frameworks and a fragmented governance, we shall strengthen international cooperation and advocate multilateral and multi-party participation in global digital governance. We call on governments, international organizations, businesses, academia, and social organizations around the world to join and engage in the global digital governance agenda and promote building open, fair, and efficient governance mechanism. Chinese academia of cyberspace studies under the leadership of Cyberspace Administration of China is a national leader think tank specialized on cyberspace affairs. We are much willing to develop exchanges and cooperation with international organizations, global research institutes, enterprise, et cetera. At the 2025 World Internet Conference Wu Zheng Summit, Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies will host a few more at-release papers contributing from global think tanks on joint-built communities with a shared future in cyberspace. We sincerely invite all friends to participate in engaging discussions on global digital development and cooperation. We will release the 9th annual World Internet Development Report presenting the latest achievements on global internet development and governance. As Karl Spitaler, the Swiss Nobel laureate in literature, once said, there is no greater happiness than having friends who share the same breath and destiny with oneself. Together, let’s join hands to promote innovative, secure, and inclusive development in cyberspace, jointly promote the building of a community with a shared future in cyberspace, and stride confidently towards a bright digital future. To conclude, I wish the Forum a great success. Thank you.

Zhiqiang Lin: Thank you, Mr. Bai. Let’s move to the next session, keynote speech. We have previously consulted with experts and various institutions to determine these two topics for discussion. Kindly note that it is just speech time, so I shall be with you. The first topic is Application and Challenges of Emerging Technologies in Building the Information Society. It is our great honor to welcome Dr. Francis Gurry, Vice Chair of the World Internet Conference, former Director-General of WIPO, to deliver a keynote speech. Welcome.

Francis Gurry: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Lin Zhiqiang. Ladies and gentlemen, very good morning to you all. It’s a great pleasure to be here, and I’d like to thank the Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies for this opportunity to speak. Mr. Bai Jiang has set out a number of principles for governance to which I wholly subscribe. I’m going to speak about two aspects of governance, two challenges to governance, I think, that are brought about by digital technology in particular, but to some extent all technologies now, and conclude with one point for governance system design, which really is balance. So of the two challenges, I think that speed and complexity of contemporary technology are complicating the task of governance, and in particular, the life of our traditional institutions for governance, which were really developed in the Industrial Age, as I think we’re all very much aware. We know that the pace of innovation is very much quickening, and we know that from our daily lives. We don’t really have a good measure of it. However, I go back to Sherlock Holmes and Arthur Conan Doyle, who wrote in the 19th century, in 1885, that knowledge begets knowledge, as money bears interest. And so just as we have invention of new things, their deployment socially is speeding up at a great speed. Netflix, for example, it took Netflix three and a half years to reach 1 million users in 1999. It took Facebook 13 months to reach 1 million users in 2004, and it took ChatGPT three days to reach 1 million users in 2022. Now, at the same time as we have this great speed occurring, we also have complexity. And artificial intelligence, of course, quantum computing, 5G, 6G, nanotechnology, bioengineering, bioinformatics are only some of the very, very sophisticated fields of technology that are moving at this greater speed. So these twin, I think, challenges of speed and complexity are really major governance challenges for us. One challenge is the growing lag between the appearance and adoption of new technologies and the legislative or parliamentary or government response. And by definition, I think we know that radical new technologies don’t have a specific regulatory framework because they’re new. And so it may be that some existing laws do apply. We know we have protection of minors, defamation, privacy, personal information protection and so on. But there may also be voids or an inadequate. so many issues, the preoccupation of attention may go with one side and not the other. So in my view, there has been quite a preoccupation in Europe over the AI Act, and that has occupied much of the space, perhaps to the detriment of attention to strategy and industrial policy. But I just cited the example of Japan, where you have the opposite, really. It is an emphasis on industrial policy and strategy as opposed to, perhaps, the regulatory side. And the reason for this is quite simple, I think. It’s that governments don’t want to disadvantage their own economic actors. They don’t want to take a step which will put their economic actors and companies at a disadvantage from a regulatory point of view compared to other governments. This is the classic case for international, of course, intervention when you get a situation like this. And I’m perhaps running out of time, so I should be very quick. I have two more points, if I may, quickly. I think the one example is in my particular area, which is the training of AI models on copyrighted data and whether this is lawful or not. It’s a big issue all around the world, as we all know. And we’ve seen a lot of action on this. But it has really divided the tech community, on the one hand, from the cultural community, on the other hand. It’s quite a bitter division. We saw that play out, for example, in the United Kingdom, where the government came down on the side of the tech community, again, for the reason of not disadvantaging their own economic actors, even though the UK has an extraordinarily strong cultural industry. But this is playing out in all countries. It’s not just the UK. So my very last point is… And by the way, on that particular point, there are 46 lawsuits in the United States of America over this question, including all the content industries and then on one side and the tech operators on the other side. So my last point would be that as we go forward with governance, I think it’s going to be very important to find the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the interests of innovation and making sure that we do get new technologies that can be extremely useful and beneficial for society and in facing all of our challenges, but on the other hand, not to ignore some of the traditional values of society, such as culture and cultural creation in the particular example that I cited. So thank you very much.

Zhiqiang Lin: Thank you, Dr. Gurry, for sharing your wonderful insights on technology governance challenges. Next, let’s invite Mr. Thomas Basikolo, Program Coordinator of the ITU Telecom Communication Standardization Bureau, to give a speech. Welcome.

Thomas Basikolo: Thank you so much. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. First of all, I would like to give appreciation to the Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies for organizing this interesting session. We did appreciate your organization, as well as to WSIS for providing the forum. In my case, I would like to dwell on one area, which is AI, which is something that is at my heart. I do work at ITU in the AI for Good team, so we’re just having an event next door. So that’s why I would like to dwell on this topic, because I think it’s relevant to the discussion today. And the theme on applications and challenges of emerging technologies. First, I would like to highlight the applications. Of course, yesterday we had the Governance Day, which highlighted not only the positive aspects. We know that AI is a double-edged sword, which can be used for good, but also in other cases, unfortunately, can be used in bad instances. But we do know that emerging technologies, in this case, are really good to shape an inclusive digital future. For me, In my role being part of ITU, I’ve seen firsthand how the advancement of digital technologies can help to bring positive change. And in this case, in terms of digital technologies, over the past few years, I would say, in terms of AI, we have seen that there is a digital revolution being brought by these technologies. So we have seen advancements in AI, machine learning, but also other technologies in general. I think over the past five years, we’ve seen how blockchain, metaverse, augmented reality, they are also shaping our society. So these emerging technologies, they are redefining how we communicate, how we work, and also how we solve global challenges. And in our case, the innovations, they hold a good promise to build a robust information society, and we would like to have a society, one that is inclusive, that is sustainable, but also that is resilient. We don’t want to have a society that continue to bring the digital device or to increase the device. And we see that, of course, with great potential in terms of these technologies, there is also significant responsibility that we need to bear as a society. And the journey to harness these technologies so that it can benefit everyone is not without obstacles, and it is through strengthened digital governance, international cooperation, we can overcome these challenges. And one of the most inspiring examples that we are working on, I would highlight different examples from the AI for Good team. And this global platform is bringing together experts from different fields to develop AI solutions that can address the pressing societal challenges. These are from different sectors, from different domains such as health care, education, to climate action and disaster response. And AI for Good, at the moment, I would say it’s not just a forum for discussion, it is a catalyst for action. And through the different projects under the AI for Good, we are turning innovative ideas into real-world impact. And one important aspect is we have a project called Innovate for Impact, which supports experts and scholars from around the world, especially in developing countries, to develop AI-driven solutions that are tailored to local needs. So by focusing on these real-world problems, but also fostering cross-sector collaboration, this is one of the examples that is demonstrating how technology can be harnessed to bridge the gaps, but also build an inclusive society. And to complement these efforts, we also have another project, which is Innovation Factory. And this project is basically to nurture local talent and technology entrepreneurship, so that we can accelerate development of digital solutions. So by providing mentorship, providing resources, providing incubation, and a platform of digital solutions. So we do help the innovators to turn their ideas into scalable and impactful products and services. And if you go to the exhibition space, you’d find several interesting projects from the Innovate for Impact, showcasing their solutions, exhibiting their solutions that are driving change in society, from climate change, to healthcare, to education, and natural disaster management. All you can see there that are part of the Innovation Factory. So this not only drives economic growth, but also it strengthens the digital ecosystem from the grassroots. So it’s not only projects from the developing country, but also from the developed world, but also from developing countries. So we try to make sure that we drive positive change in the developing world as well. And of course, technology alone is not enough. We also want to build an inclusive information society, we must invest in people. So talent is another important aspect. And with this, we focus mainly on the youth, because we know that the youth are the future, the next generation that is going to build our ecosystem, technological ecosystem. So we have different projects, we have the AI Skills Coalition, we have the ITU AI Machine Learning Competitions. And these have emerged to be path two for youth engagement and capacity development, because we are providing real world problems that students can solve. So it complements their academic theoretical studies in classroom with real world data that they can use to complement and solve real world problems, but also they are contributing to the advancement of technology. So these competitions, they provide young innovators in developing countries with the skills, the mentorship and global and Prof. Thomas Basikolo. So, by tackling real-world challenges, the participants also gain hands-on experience to become active contributors on the digital revolution. And of course, to support these initiatives, these projects, we also have a project called AI Readiness, which plays a big role in helping countries, not only countries but also domains, to prepare for the digital age. And the project provides policymakers with the tools and frameworks they need to develop inclusive digital policies, but also infrastructure. And by focusing on readiness, we ensure that no one is left behind in the digital transformation. But of course, we have these successful projects, but it comes at a cost. We have also significant challenges that still remain. The rapid pace of technology, we can see, can outstrip governance frameworks. So, there has been discussion on how much can we bring our regulation. Is regulation stifling innovation? We have all these issues that we still need to come together to discuss and find solutions. And marginalized communities, particularly in rural and low-income areas, they risk being excluded to benefit from the digital innovation. But of course, the environmental impact cannot go unnoticed. Because these technologies, for example, AI, if you are talking about AI, of course, we have to make sure that we separate. We have the machine learning, natural language processing, deep learning, and then we have large language models. So, in the case of generative AI foundation models or large language models, we have seen that there’s issues with energy consumption. At technology, on its own, we have issues in terms of e-waste. So, we need to focus on these issues as well. We just don’t want to talk about the positive aspects, but also we need to include the negative aspects. And at ITU, we are committed to advance sustainability initiatives through different collaborative projects. We have the Green Digital Action, which promotes responsible digital transformation. We have Study Group 5, which develop international standards in environment, e-waste, and of course, emissions. Looking ahead, I believe that the path to inclusive digital future lies on collaboration. So, we need to make sure that we are collaborating, we are working together with different stakeholders. And by strengthening digital governance and international collaboration, we can ensure that emerging technologies save the common good. And at ITU, together with partners, we remain dedicated to build a world where digital opportunities are accessible to all, and where innovation is guided by principles of equity, accountability, and sustainability. So, at this point, I would like to thank you all for your commitment to shape a better digital future, and I hope together we can build an information society that leaves no one behind. Thank you very much.

Zhiqiang Lin: Thank you, Mr. Basikolo. Thank you, Dr. Basikolo, for your sharing on the latest update of ITU and AI for Good in promoting the application and digital technologies. Now let’s welcome Mr. Huang Yuhong, General Manager of China Mobile Research Institute to give a speech. Welcome.

Yuhong Huang: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I’m Huang Yuhong from China Mobile Research Institute. I’m very glad to join this forum to share with you about China Mobile’s practice in advancing the development of the latest ICT AI technology to build an inclusive digital future. Here I have a slide. As we all know that the latest ICT technology, like 5G, AI, is shaping the global socioeconomic landscape, influence a lot our daily life, the manufacturing, the governments, to make it more convenient, efficient, and productive. To make it happen, we think the AICT – AICT, I call it – is AI integrated with communication and IT technology infrastructure. We think a telecom operator should – we played an important role to build a strong and ubiquitous advanced infrastructure to enable the AICT development. So I’ll share about China Mobile’s practice. For information infrastructure, China Mobile has built the world’s largest network. For the mobile, for 5G, we already built 2.5 million base stations, which account for one-third of the total number of the global 5G base stations. And we also built the largest IPv6 barrier network, and built the world’s first 40-gigabit optical network. As for the AI computing capability, we built important and the largest, very powerful computability infrastructure. We already have 43 EFLOPs computing capacity, and we connected all the IDCs to provide cloud edge terminal computing power collaboration. As for the AI engine, China Mobile developed our in-house AI-powered enabled engine. We built our multi-modal large models, AI models, support large language model, and also a vision model, speech model, data model, which can be used in different scenarios. And importantly, we think we need to make our infrastructure a 5G AI capability to empower the industry’s transformation to digital intelligence. So actually, we have already developed. more than 50,000 5G user case to enhance the vertical industry like tourist, health care, manufacturing, power grid, smart city, education, etc. The gentleman from ITU just mentioned AI consume a lot of energy. But we think AI can also help the energy industry to save the energy. So we think it’s very important to use this technology to bring the green development. And for our daily life, China Mobile also worked with our partner to empower our smart digital life. For example, we developed 5G new calling capability. That is, when we’re doing a phone call, we can, for example, the caller in different country, you can experience the simultaneous translation. And so it’s very important and a very good service to our customer. We also developed our AI agent called Lingxi to do our customer service. And we also actually work with our partner to provide, we call it new three products for our customer. Before in China, every family need three important things. That is TV, refrigerator, and the washing machine. Now we think the new products is also very important for consumer service, that is AI-embedded device, the intelligent electronic vehicle and robots. So we worked with our partner to develop those kind of product to serve our customer. With the very promising development, we still see there’s a challenge. Here I’d like to share that Chen Mobile worked together with Omedia and the GTI. We do a research to analyze the, we call it, an index, we call it Mobile Intelligence Integration Index. This MI3 is to evaluate the level of the global mobile intelligence integrated development and offer reference and guidance to the relevant stakeholders. With this research, we found that the global, there is an even development for the digital infrastructure. So that is a global digital infrastructure gap. And we also noticed there’s insufficient integration of the AICT’s capability with vertical industry. The traditional vertical industry lack of the capability to integrate with the latest technology. And the third one, we think, is shortage of the AI talents. To tackle those challenges, we think a global cooperation open. and Global Cooperation is very important. So China Mobile actually participates in global organizations like ITU. We participate in the activities in ITU for AI for Good. We contribute our best practice to sharing our 5G AI user case. And we also participate in GSMA together with a telecom operator to promote the telecom authentic AI. And also for the GTI, actually China Mobile is the founder of GTI, which is also a global cooperation platform. We developed a program named 5G AI to promote the global cooperation for the technology innovation, the product innovation, and the service innovation for 5G times AI. We already developed many user cases and set up labs for the collaborative cooperation. And we also set up an international partnership. For example, we have a joint AI education initiative and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Framework to help to have more AI talent. We also set up a joint lab with a cinemas group that is in Indonesia to promote the AI service. So let’s just share some practice of our China Mobile promoting the latest technology and promoting the global cooperation to

Zhiqiang Lin: Thank you, Mr. Huang, your unique perspective from an enterprise offers a vivid example of how the new generation of ICT can empower our life and our product. Now let’s move to the second topic, Global Digital Governance Mechanism and International Cooperation. It’s our pleasure to invite Prof. Gong Ke, Executive Director of Chinese Institute of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Strategy, former President of World Federal of Engineering Organization, to share his insight. Welcome.

Ke Gong: Thank you. Thank you so much, Chair. Very good morning to all of you. On my behalf of the Special Task Force for Engineering Capacity Building for Africa program, to give you a concrete, tangible example on the international collaboration for the AI capacity building. So just one year ago in New York, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted a very, very important resolution, which is titled Enhancing the International Collaboration on Capacity Building of Artificial Intelligence. And later in the Global Compact of – Global Digital Compact, the GDC, the capacity building also stressed why the capacity building is so important, because the AI capacity gap We are a digital-plus engineering program. We leverage digital technology to plus various engineering profession practices. And we also try to embed the ethical principles into our courses so we can leverage technology for the African engineers to carry out digital transformation in an ethical way. So the purpose is to enhance the capacity in engineering education, to enhance the capacity of continuous professional development, and to enhance the capacity of engineering transfer or digital adoption. So we are going to set up some capacity-building centers in different parts of the African continent. And with this center, we mobilize the international experts, courses, tools, funds into African continent. So we have inaugurated this program early this year in Kenya. We have 50 engineers from workplaces, from the Kenya Power, Kenya Railway Station, Railway, and so on and so forth, more than 10 industrial companies. And they brought their own data by using the big fundamental model and to treat those data to make some predictions. So five full-day program attracted a lot of interest of engineers. And these are their feedbacks. So eye-opening, enlightening, engaging, exciting, and so on and so forth. What is we learned from the success of the inauguration, we call it the The pilot training is that first, there’s really the local need-based. So we call for participation, and they pay their fees to attend these courses. And also, they’re organized based, they’re locally organized. We work closely with the Institute of Engineers of Kenya together. They gather this workshop, and we got support from industry, from academia, from the universities. And also, we got support from international organizations. We used, we leveraged the convening power of UNESCO to do this. And also, we work with United Nations University. They are going to certificate our courses. So that’s a real application example for the international collaboration on engineering capacity building. So I just stop here. We look forward to working with all of you together to strengthen this effort to make this a great success for Africa and for the whole world. Thank you so much.

Zhiqiang Lin: Thank you, Professor. Now, next, let’s welcome Mr. Torbjörn Fredriksson, Head of the Economical and Digital Economy branch at the UN Trade and Development. Welcome.

Torbjorn Fredriksson: Thank you very much. In the interest of time, I think I will skip my prepared presentation and just make some reflections. I very much like the comments by Dr. Guri about speed and complexity. This speed, we can also get carried away by all these new things that are happening. And from our perspective, from the UN Conference on Trade and Development, our main concern is that we don’t lose track of those that are not at the frontier. It’s very much, as was said, stress that there is a high level of concentration. Where is this most exciting things happening? It’s not in Europe. I say it’s in China, in the U.S. And because of the speed and the complexity of what we’re seeing now, it’s also a tremendous challenge for governments in every country, I would say, to really keep track of what should we look at and what should we look at. Just to illustrate this complexity issue, we have recently presented our digital economy report where we looked at the interface between digitalization and environmental sustainability. And if you look at the just a simple thing, you would think as a phone. When we produce phones in the in the 60s, that lasted for many decades, of course, you needed 10 different elements from the periodic table. 10. By the first mobile phones at 1990, we used 27 elements. And in the smartphones that we are using today, you’re all sitting with it, it takes 63 elements from the periodic table. That’s more than half of all the components and elements that exist in the world for one smartphone. That just shows the complexity and also the artificial intelligence here. It is now anticipated that the energy consumption of data centers linked to AI development, especially the generative types of AI, will consume more electricity in the U.S. than all the energy intensive other industries taken together, like cement, steel, and so on and so forth. The challenge is what do we do about that? Because as this is happening, we have a very strong tendency of looking at the potential opportunities that all this AI, blockchain, and other technologies can bring. How do we give equal attention to the potential downsides of this, so that when we finally get to come together and govern what’s happening, it’s not too soon. Right now, we’re seeing the combination of digitalization and the need to shift to more green technologies, more renewable energies and so on and so forth. It’s creating tremendous demand for certain critical minerals, so much so that some of these, especially the platinum group, they’re expected to be 500 times more in 2060. It’s a big question mark. Can we get these minerals and metals to continue this, to sustain this, without sacrificing the world? In fact, you can see a good illustration of this by looking at the interest from governments and from companies to start mining in the deep seas, because they are worried that they can’t find it on the Earth’s crust. And the strong interest in mining outer space. All of this creates tremendous governance challenges, because it’s not clearly defined who controls these parts, who will take care of the potential downside, the increasing space waste, and so on and so forth. But at this time, I will just say that the issue of governance is so important, and I fully, strongly agree with the need for international efforts, because this is not for individual countries to manage, and the need also for having more international cooperation. I cannot help ending my remarks with a comparison here. We have six companies, all American, leading in terms of value in the world. These six companies, they are worth almost $17 trillion, trillion dollars in market capitalization value. Let’s compare that. That’s six times more than the total value of the African continent’s GDP, and it is 57 times more than all the official development standards. assistance by all the OECD countries. Surely, we must be able to secure more funding to create an inclusive digital economy to help those countries that are lagging behind to build the capabilities, the infrastructure, and the governance that is needed to make it a good world. Thank you very much.

Zhiqiang Lin: Thank you, Mr. for the full direction. Now, let’s invite Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Prof. Emeritus of University of Aarhus, Denmark. Welcome.

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter: Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you very much. I see we are running out of time, and so I will be very brief. Thank you for the invitation. My presentation fits directly to what Torbjörn has just said, because as an academic person, we are dealing with definitions. This leads to the definition what we understand under digital governance in the digital future. We have now a confusing number of different terminologies. We are speaking about artificial governance. I was in a workshop the day before yesterday on quantum governance. I was involved 20 years ago. This is a plus 20 event here when we defined internet governance. I think we should clarify what is our understanding of governance in the digital age and why we will see a proliferation of terminologies like digital cyber governance, data governance. We have now a working group on data governance in the UNCSTD. We should remember the basics. I was a member. of the United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance, which had a mandate from the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, 20 years ago to define internet governance. And we had a difficult time to agree on a narrow definition or a broad definition. We decided in favor of a broad definition, which was then adopted by the 193 member states in the Tunis Summit on the World Information Society. And this broad definition has three elements, which in my eyes are very relevant for all forms of governance in the digital age, including AI governance, digital governance, quantum governance, cyber governance, or data governance. So the first element is that it says, you know, if you come to governance mechanism, you have to involve all stakeholders. So the mighty stakeholder approach is important. The second element was, so internet governance has to be based on shared principle norms, programs, and decision-making procedures. So that is the collaborative approach. You have to work together and to share. I think this is the sharing and the collaborative approach. And the third element was we referred to the evolution and the use of the internet that is the technical and the application layer. We all know the internet is a layered system. And so what you need is to have a holistic approach, which includes not only the technical aspects, but also the policy applications in particular consequences for internet related public policy issues. So, and I think this three elements, the mighty stakeholder approach, the collaborative approach, and the holistic approach is very relevant for digital governance, for AI governance, and as a form of governance in the digital age. To clarify this, This issue is important if we move to regulation. I will not go deeper in the challenges which are coming with regulation, because in particular in the field of AI, we see also a huge debate how far we should go with regulation. One speaker has mentioned the conflict between regulation and innovation, how we can settle this. My recommendation also for the new AI bodies in the context of the United Nations, the AI panel and the AI dialogue, is not to look for a legally binding instrument on the global level, but for something like an AI declaration, which could be adopted in 2027, when the first GDC review and the IGF review is on the table. Legally binding instruments are probably good for the local level and the regional level, as we have seen in the European context or in the Council of Europe context, which have also a legally binding document. But on the UN level, it’s probably better to work towards political frameworks, as we have from the UNESCO, the AI recommendation on ethics. And if the United Nations want to do something, then probably a general declaration, a universal declaration on AI, which is based on the OECD principles from 2019, could be a step forward. Thank you very much for your attention.

Zhiqiang Lin: Thank you, Professor Koller-Wurz. Now let’s invite Professor Prof. Luca Belli, Director of the CyberBRICS Project at FIDACO, Titolio, Vegas, Brazil, to share his insights with the video.

Luca Belli: Good morning, and thank you very much. for having invited me to this session on Strengthen Digital Governance and International Cooperation to Build an Inclusive Digital Future. I think this is an excellent topic, a very timely topic. I would like to salute the initiative of the Chinese Academy for Cyberspace Studies for organizing this session. My name is Luca Belli, I’m a professor here at FGV Law School where I direct the Center for Technology and Society and also the CyberBRICS project that has been mapping the digital policies of the BRICS groupings, so Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and then the six new groupings, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and how this grouping has facilitated what in internet governance vernacular we can call enhanced cooperation to solve digital matters, right? So I think that over the past 10 years especially we have seen the BRICS playing a very important role as a club governance mechanism that facilitates cooperation amongst member states and also recently together also with the associate countries, the partner countries, an increasing number of these countries coming from the global south. And I think that it really it is really interesting to pay attention to BRICS dynamic precisely because this is the only club governance mechanism that facilitates interaction amongst global south leaders and with the aim to then create policy suggestions and articulate support for those policy suggestions to propose them at the International level, especially at the UN level, being the UN the only organization that is recognized as the appropriate venue, the appropriate forum, to discuss international digital policies and have them implemented into concrete output. And let me give you a very, very interesting example. A case in point of this cooperation is the very recent adoption of the Convention against Cybercrime, which has been lobbied intensely by several BRICS members, brokered also with the very important help of Brazilian diplomacy that played a key role into this. And the result has been the adoption of the first global treaty on digital matters, quintessentially lobbied for and created by global South leaders. Now, of course, as any treaty, this can be criticized, but it is a very interesting example of why paying attention to BRICS dynamics is very important. It has become actually key in internet policy and digital policy matters. A very interesting evolution that also has been witnessed by our research on data governance and cybersecurity has been also the recent commitment since the Kazan Declaration in 2024 to create a global data framework that facilitates legal interoperability amongst different policy frameworks that are already existing at the national level in the BRICS group. So these are only a few examples of how the BRICS can play a very important role, is already playing actually a very important role in facilitating dialogue, also creating a sort of policy incubator. where then solutions that are conceived in the Global South by global majority leaders can then be brought at the international level and adopted. And I think that a very important way also to witness this is the choice of the Brazilian presidency of the BRICS grouping that has chosen for 2025, the year of the presidency, the team is strengthening Global South cooperation for more inclusive and sustainable governance. And this really witnessed the intention of the grouping and especially this year under the Brazilian chairmanship to intensely lobby for a more inclusive and sustainable governance including in regards to digital matters. Thank you very much for having me and I wish you an excellent conference. Bye-bye.

Zhiqiang Lin: Thanks for a very time flat. We have to end the forum. Thank all the judges and the colleges for their wisdom and efforts contributed to this forum. Also, we need to appreciate the high-level event secretaries for providing us with a great platform for exchanges. Thank you for your participation. Let’s end. Thank you.

Agreement points

International cooperation is essential for effective digital governance

Speakers

– Francis Gurry
– Wolfgang Kleinwaechter
– Luca Belli
– Thomas Basikolo
– Jiang Bai
– Zhiqiang Lin

Arguments

International cooperation crucial when governments avoid disadvantaging their own economic actors through regulation

Need for multistakeholder approach, collaborative mechanisms, and holistic governance covering technical and policy layers

BRICS serves as important club governance mechanism facilitating Global South cooperation on digital policies

Need for AI readiness frameworks to help countries prepare for digital transformation

Enhanced mutual trust, dialogue, and multilateral participation essential for addressing security risks

WSIS Plus 20 Forum aims to strengthen digital governance and international cooperation for inclusive digital future

Summary

All speakers emphasized that digital governance challenges are too complex and global in nature to be addressed by individual countries alone, requiring coordinated international cooperation, multilateral approaches, and collaborative frameworks involving multiple stakeholders.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Capacity development

Digital technologies must serve inclusive development and bridge digital divides

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Jiang Bai
– Yuhong Huang
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

AI for Good platform demonstrates how technology can address societal challenges through cross-sector collaboration

Need for innovation, openness, and global sharing of AI research to ensure digital dividends benefit all humanity

Over 50,000 5G use cases developed across vertical industries like healthcare, manufacturing, and smart cities

Six major tech companies worth $17 trillion highlight concentration of digital power and need for inclusive development

Summary

Speakers agreed that digital technologies should be developed and deployed to ensure inclusive benefits for all, particularly addressing the needs of developing countries and marginalized communities, rather than concentrating benefits among a few major players.

Topics

Development | Digital access | Economic

Speed and complexity of technological change create significant governance challenges

Speakers

– Francis Gurry
– Wolfgang Kleinwaechter
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

Speed and complexity of technology are creating governance challenges, with traditional institutions struggling to keep pace with rapid innovation

Need for multistakeholder approach, collaborative mechanisms, and holistic governance covering technical and policy layers

Modern smartphones require 63 elements from periodic table, showing increasing complexity and resource demands

Summary

Speakers acknowledged that the rapid pace of technological innovation and increasing complexity of digital systems are outpacing traditional governance mechanisms, requiring new approaches to regulation and oversight.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the challenges of traditional regulatory approaches in addressing rapidly evolving technologies and suggested more flexible, collaborative governance frameworks rather than rigid legal instruments at the global level.

Speakers

– Francis Gurry
– Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

Arguments

Growing lag between technology adoption and legislative response creates regulatory voids and inadequate frameworks

Preference for political frameworks like AI declarations over legally binding instruments at global level

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Both speakers highlighted successful examples of capacity building programs that support local talent development in developing countries, particularly in Africa, through international collaboration and practical training initiatives.

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Ke Gong

Arguments

Projects like Innovate for Impact and Innovation Factory support local talent and entrepreneurship in developing countries

Engineering capacity building programs in Africa show successful model for international AI collaboration

Topics

Development | Capacity development | Online education

Both speakers acknowledged the significant environmental challenges posed by digital technologies, including energy consumption, e-waste, and resource depletion, emphasizing the need for sustainable approaches to digital development.

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

Green Digital Action and environmental standards needed to address e-waste and emissions from digital technologies

AI data centers expected to consume more electricity than all energy-intensive industries combined in the US

Critical mineral demands may increase 500 times by 2060, raising questions about sustainable technology development

Topics

Development | Sustainable development | E-waste

Unexpected consensus

Environmental sustainability concerns in digital development

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Torbjorn Fredriksson
– Yuhong Huang

Arguments

Green Digital Action and environmental standards needed to address e-waste and emissions from digital technologies

AI data centers expected to consume more electricity than all energy-intensive industries combined in the US

Global digital infrastructure gaps and insufficient integration with traditional industries remain major challenges

Explanation

Despite the forum’s focus on promoting digital technologies and AI development, there was unexpected consensus among speakers about the serious environmental challenges posed by digital technologies. This suggests a mature understanding that technological advancement must be balanced with sustainability concerns.

Topics

Development | Sustainable development | Infrastructure

Global South leadership in digital governance

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Ke Gong
– Jiang Bai

Arguments

BRICS successfully lobbied for first global cybercrime treaty, demonstrating Global South leadership in digital governance

Engineering capacity building programs in Africa show successful model for international AI collaboration

Need for innovation, openness, and global sharing of AI research to ensure digital dividends benefit all humanity

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the importance of Global South leadership and participation in digital governance, moving beyond traditional North-South dynamics to recognize emerging economies as key drivers of digital policy innovation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Capacity development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the need for international cooperation in digital governance, the importance of inclusive development that bridges digital divides, and the recognition that technological complexity requires new governance approaches. There was also unexpected agreement on environmental sustainability concerns and the value of Global South leadership in digital policy.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for digital governance policy. The agreement suggests a mature understanding that digital transformation requires collaborative, inclusive, and sustainable approaches rather than purely technology-driven solutions. This consensus could facilitate more effective international cooperation and policy coordination in digital governance initiatives.

Different viewpoints

Approach to AI regulation – legally binding vs political frameworks

Speakers

– Francis Gurry
– Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

Arguments

International cooperation crucial when governments avoid disadvantaging their own economic actors through regulation

Preference for political frameworks like AI declarations over legally binding instruments at global level

Summary

Gurry emphasizes the need for international cooperation to address regulatory gaps and prevent governments from avoiding regulation to protect domestic companies, while Kleinwaechter specifically advocates against legally binding instruments at the global level, preferring political frameworks and declarations instead.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Focus on positive applications vs environmental concerns of digital technologies

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

AI for Good platform demonstrates how technology can address societal challenges through cross-sector collaboration

AI data centers expected to consume more electricity than all energy-intensive industries combined in the US

Summary

Basikolo emphasizes the positive applications of AI through the AI for Good platform and cross-sector collaboration for societal benefits, while Fredriksson focuses heavily on the environmental costs and unsustainable resource consumption of digital technologies, particularly AI’s massive energy demands.

Topics

Development | Sustainable development

Infrastructure development priorities – building capacity vs addressing concentration

Speakers

– Yuhong Huang
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

China Mobile built world’s largest 5G network and AI computing infrastructure to enable AICT development

Six major tech companies worth $17 trillion highlight concentration of digital power and need for inclusive development

Summary

Huang focuses on building massive infrastructure and expanding 5G/AI capabilities as solutions to digital development challenges, while Fredriksson emphasizes the problematic concentration of digital wealth and power, arguing for more inclusive distribution rather than just infrastructure expansion.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Unexpected differences

Role of large infrastructure development in addressing digital divides

Speakers

– Yuhong Huang
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

Over 50,000 5G use cases developed across vertical industries like healthcare, manufacturing, and smart cities

Six major tech companies worth $17 trillion highlight concentration of digital power and need for inclusive development

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are addressing digital inclusion, but from completely opposite perspectives. Huang presents massive infrastructure development and use case expansion as the solution, while Fredriksson argues that the concentration of digital wealth and power is the fundamental problem that infrastructure expansion alone cannot solve.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Emphasis on technical solutions vs governance frameworks for AI challenges

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

Arguments

Projects like Innovate for Impact and Innovation Factory support local talent and entrepreneurship in developing countries

Need for multistakeholder approach, collaborative mechanisms, and holistic governance covering technical and policy layers

Explanation

While both speakers address AI governance, Basikolo focuses heavily on technical capacity building and project implementation as solutions, while Kleinwaechter emphasizes the need for proper governance frameworks and definitions. This represents an unexpected divide between technical implementation versus governance structure approaches.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Capacity development

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center around regulatory approaches (binding vs political frameworks), the balance between promoting digital innovation and addressing environmental/concentration concerns, and whether technical infrastructure development or governance reform should be prioritized.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. While speakers share common goals of inclusive digital governance and international cooperation, their different approaches could lead to conflicting policy recommendations. The disagreements reflect broader tensions between developed and developing country perspectives, technical versus governance-focused solutions, and optimistic versus cautious approaches to digital transformation.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the challenges of traditional regulatory approaches in addressing rapidly evolving technologies and suggested more flexible, collaborative governance frameworks rather than rigid legal instruments at the global level.

Speakers

– Francis Gurry
– Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

Arguments

Growing lag between technology adoption and legislative response creates regulatory voids and inadequate frameworks

Preference for political frameworks like AI declarations over legally binding instruments at global level

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Both speakers highlighted successful examples of capacity building programs that support local talent development in developing countries, particularly in Africa, through international collaboration and practical training initiatives.

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Ke Gong

Arguments

Projects like Innovate for Impact and Innovation Factory support local talent and entrepreneurship in developing countries

Engineering capacity building programs in Africa show successful model for international AI collaboration

Topics

Development | Capacity development | Online education

Both speakers acknowledged the significant environmental challenges posed by digital technologies, including energy consumption, e-waste, and resource depletion, emphasizing the need for sustainable approaches to digital development.

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

Green Digital Action and environmental standards needed to address e-waste and emissions from digital technologies

AI data centers expected to consume more electricity than all energy-intensive industries combined in the US

Critical mineral demands may increase 500 times by 2060, raising questions about sustainable technology development

Topics

Development | Sustainable development | E-waste

Key takeaways

Digital governance faces unprecedented challenges due to the speed and complexity of emerging technologies, with traditional institutions struggling to keep pace with rapid innovation cycles

International cooperation and multistakeholder approaches are essential for effective digital governance, as individual countries cannot manage these challenges alone

AI and emerging technologies offer significant potential for addressing global challenges through initiatives like AI for Good, but require careful balance between innovation and traditional societal values

Global South countries, particularly through mechanisms like BRICS, are playing increasingly important leadership roles in shaping international digital policies and governance frameworks

Digital infrastructure gaps and capacity building remain critical barriers to inclusive digital development, requiring targeted international collaboration and investment

Environmental sustainability concerns are growing as digital technologies consume increasing amounts of energy and resources, with AI data centers expected to consume more electricity than traditional energy-intensive industries

The concentration of digital power in a few major tech companies (worth $17 trillion combined) highlights the urgent need for more inclusive and equitable digital development approaches

Resolutions and action items

Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies will host forums at the 2025 World Internet Conference Wuzhen Summit with global think tanks contributing papers on building communities with shared future in cyberspace

Release of the 9th annual World Internet Development Report presenting latest achievements on global internet development and governance

Continuation of AI for Good initiatives including Innovate for Impact and Innovation Factory projects to support developing countries

Expansion of engineering capacity building programs in Africa following successful pilot in Kenya

Development of AI readiness frameworks to help countries prepare for digital transformation

BRICS commitment to create a global data framework for legal interoperability among member states under Brazilian presidency in 2025

Unresolved issues

The fundamental tension between innovation and regulation remains unaddressed, with no clear framework for balancing technological advancement with necessary governance

How to address the growing lag between technology adoption and legislative response, particularly for radical new technologies without existing regulatory frameworks

The question of whether AI training on copyrighted data is lawful, with 46 ongoing lawsuits in the US and bitter divisions between tech and cultural communities

How to ensure sustainable development of digital technologies given the massive increase in critical mineral demands (potentially 500 times more by 2060)

The challenge of preventing marginalized communities, particularly in rural and low-income areas, from being excluded from digital innovation benefits

How to address the concentration of digital power and ensure more equitable distribution of digital dividends globally

The lack of sufficient funding for inclusive digital economy development, despite the massive market capitalization of leading tech companies

Suggested compromises

Preference for political frameworks like AI declarations over legally binding instruments at the global level, while maintaining legally binding documents at regional levels

Focus on collaborative approaches with shared principles, norms, and decision-making procedures rather than top-down regulatory frameworks

Emphasis on multistakeholder governance involving governments, international organizations, businesses, academia, and civil society rather than government-only approaches

Balance between promoting innovation and preserving traditional societal values, such as cultural creation and intellectual property rights

Combination of global cooperation with local needs-based and locally organized capacity building programs

Integration of environmental sustainability considerations into digital development through initiatives like Green Digital Action while continuing technological advancement

Speed and complexity of contemporary technology are complicating the task of governance… Netflix took three and a half years to reach 1 million users in 1999. It took Facebook 13 months to reach 1 million users in 2004, and it took ChatGPT three days to reach 1 million users in 2022.

Speaker

Francis Gurry

Reason

This comment provides a concrete, quantifiable framework for understanding the governance challenge. By using specific adoption timelines, Gurry transforms abstract concepts of ‘speed’ and ‘complexity’ into tangible metrics that demonstrate the exponential acceleration of technology adoption. This creates a compelling narrative that helps explain why traditional governance structures are struggling.

Impact

This comment established the foundational challenge that subsequent speakers built upon. It shifted the discussion from general observations about digital governance to specific, measurable problems. Later speakers like Torbjörn Fredriksson referenced similar themes about speed and complexity, and Thomas Basikolo acknowledged the challenge of regulation keeping pace with innovation.

These six companies [leading American tech companies] are worth almost $17 trillion… That’s six times more than the total value of the African continent’s GDP, and it is 57 times more than all the official development assistance by all the OECD countries.

Speaker

Torbjörn Fredriksson

Reason

This stark comparison provides a powerful illustration of global digital inequality and concentration of power. By juxtaposing the market value of six companies against entire continents and international aid budgets, Fredriksson quantifies the scale of digital divide in economic terms that are impossible to ignore.

Impact

This comment fundamentally reframed the discussion from technical governance challenges to questions of global equity and power distribution. It provided concrete context for why international cooperation and inclusive governance are not just idealistic goals but urgent necessities. The comment elevated the stakes of the entire discussion.

In the smartphones that we are using today… it takes 63 elements from the periodic table. That’s more than half of all the components and elements that exist in the world for one smartphone… AI development will consume more electricity in the U.S. than all the energy intensive other industries taken together.

Speaker

Torbjörn Fredriksson

Reason

This comment brilliantly illustrates the hidden complexity and environmental cost of digital technologies through concrete, relatable examples. By connecting everyday devices to fundamental chemistry and comparing AI energy consumption to entire industrial sectors, it makes abstract sustainability concerns tangible and urgent.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from viewing technology as primarily beneficial to acknowledging serious environmental and resource constraints. It added a critical sustainability dimension that other speakers had not fully addressed, forcing consideration of whether current digital development trajectories are sustainable.

We should clarify what is our understanding of governance in the digital age… the broad definition has three elements… the multi-stakeholder approach, the collaborative approach, and the holistic approach.

Speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

Reason

As someone who helped define internet governance 20 years ago, Kleinwaechter provides historical perspective and definitional clarity to a discussion that had been using ‘governance’ in various ways. His three-element framework offers a structured approach to understanding digital governance that transcends specific technologies.

Impact

This comment provided conceptual grounding for the entire discussion. By offering a clear definitional framework rooted in UN precedent, it gave other participants and future discussions a common vocabulary and structure for approaching digital governance challenges across different technologies and contexts.

AI can also help the energy industry to save the energy. So we think it’s very important to use this technology to bring the green development.

Speaker

Yuhong Huang

Reason

This comment provides a crucial counterpoint to concerns about AI’s energy consumption by highlighting AI’s potential to optimize energy use across other sectors. It demonstrates the complexity of technology impact assessment and the need for holistic rather than narrow evaluations.

Impact

This comment introduced nuance to the sustainability discussion, preventing it from becoming one-sidedly negative about AI’s environmental impact. It encouraged a more balanced view of technology’s environmental effects and highlighted the importance of net impact analysis rather than focusing solely on direct consumption.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by providing concrete frameworks for understanding abstract challenges. Gurry’s speed/complexity framework established the core governance challenge, while Fredriksson’s economic comparisons and environmental data quantified the stakes and urgency. Kleinwaechter’s definitional framework provided conceptual structure, and Huang’s energy counterpoint added necessary nuance. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from general observations to specific, measurable challenges with clear implications for policy and international cooperation. They created a progression from identifying problems (speed, complexity) to quantifying stakes (inequality, environmental impact) to providing solutions frameworks (multi-stakeholder governance). The discussion became more sophisticated and actionable as a result of these interventions.

How can we measure the pace of technological innovation more effectively?

Speaker

Francis Gurry

Explanation

Gurry noted that while we know the pace of innovation is quickening from our daily lives, ‘we don’t really have a good measure of it,’ indicating a need for better metrics to quantify technological advancement speed.

How can international coordination address the regulatory lag between technology emergence and government response?

Speaker

Francis Gurry

Explanation

Gurry identified the growing lag between new technology adoption and legislative response as a major governance challenge, suggesting this is ‘the classic case for international intervention.’

How can governments balance innovation promotion with protecting traditional societal values?

Speaker

Francis Gurry

Explanation

Gurry emphasized the need to find ‘appropriate balance between the interests of innovation’ and ‘not to ignore some of the traditional values of society,’ using the example of AI training on copyrighted data.

How can AI energy consumption be balanced with environmental sustainability goals?

Speaker

Thomas Basikolo and Torbjörn Fredriksson

Explanation

Both speakers raised concerns about AI’s energy consumption, with Fredriksson noting that AI data centers may consume more electricity than all energy-intensive industries combined, requiring research into sustainable solutions.

How can we ensure adequate supply of critical minerals for digital technology without environmental sacrifice?

Speaker

Torbjörn Fredriksson

Explanation

Fredriksson highlighted that demand for critical minerals could increase 500 times by 2060, raising questions about sustainable sourcing and whether we can ‘get these minerals and metals without sacrificing the world.’

How can we develop clearer definitions and frameworks for different types of digital governance?

Speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

Explanation

Kleinwaechter noted the ‘confusing number of different terminologies’ in digital governance and emphasized the need to ‘clarify what is our understanding of governance in the digital age.’

What is the optimal approach for AI regulation at different governance levels (local, regional, global)?

Speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

Explanation

Kleinwaechter suggested different regulatory approaches for different levels, recommending political frameworks rather than legally binding instruments at the UN level, which requires further research and discussion.

How can Global South countries better participate in and influence international digital governance?

Speaker

Luca Belli

Explanation

Belli highlighted BRICS as an example of Global South cooperation in digital policy, suggesting the need for more research on how to enhance inclusive governance mechanisms that give voice to global majority leaders.

How can we address the global digital infrastructure gap more effectively?

Speaker

Yuhong Huang

Explanation

Huang identified ‘uneven development for the digital infrastructure’ as a key challenge through their Mobile Intelligence Integration Index research, indicating need for solutions to bridge this gap.

How can we better integrate AI capabilities with traditional vertical industries?

Speaker

Yuhong Huang

Explanation

Huang noted ‘insufficient integration of the AICT’s capability with vertical industry’ and that ‘traditional vertical industry lack of the capability to integrate with the latest technology,’ requiring further research on integration strategies.

Summary

This transcript captures the final session of the WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe, a week-long series of discussions examining the future of the World Summit on the Information Society beyond 2025. The session was moderated by William Lee from Australia, with support from three table facilitators who guided small group discussions among participants representing various stakeholder groups including government, private sector, academia, and civil society.

The discussion was structured around three key questions that participants explored in rotating table conversations. The first question focused on developing a collective vision for WSIS beyond 2025, with groups emphasizing the need for greater inclusivity, meaningful participation from underrepresented communities including youth and indigenous voices, and stronger connections between policy-level discussions and on-ground realities. Participants highlighted the importance of maintaining WSIS’s multi-stakeholder approach while addressing new challenges like artificial intelligence and digital sovereignty.

The second question examined how WSIS can continue supporting global development goals, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals. Groups stressed the importance of local implementation, capacity building at grassroots levels, and better integration between WSIS action lines and SDG frameworks. They emphasized the need for measurable impact, practical outcomes, and leveraging WSIS’s political visibility to drive development objectives.

The final question addressed strengthening WSIS implementation mechanisms, including UN agencies coordination, stock-taking processes, and the Internet Governance Forum. Participants identified challenges with UN system silos, funding constraints, and the need for better collaboration rather than competition among agencies. They called for more horizontal structures, regular performance reviews, and strategic partnerships to avoid duplication of efforts.

Throughout the discussions, recurring themes emerged including the need for better outreach and communication about WSIS processes, addressing digital divides, incorporating environmental considerations, and ensuring that affected communities are included in decision-making rather than merely being discussed. The session concluded with participants encouraged to contribute their ideas to the formal WSIS review process, demonstrating the collaborative spirit that has characterized the WSIS framework for two decades.

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

This was the final session of a week-long WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe, focused on developing a collective vision for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) beyond 2025. The discussion aimed to gather input for an outcome document that will feed into a UN General Assembly review in December 2025, with participants from multiple stakeholder groups discussing how to strengthen and evolve the WSIS process.

## Major Discussion Points

– **Expanding Participation and Inclusion**: Participants emphasized the need to broaden WSIS engagement beyond current attendees, particularly focusing on underrepresented communities, indigenous voices, youth, people with disabilities, and marginalized groups. There was discussion about creating more accessible participation mechanisms, including childcare facilities and sign language interpretation.

– **Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Implementation at Local Levels**: A key theme was moving WSIS implementation from high-level policy discussions to practical action at national, regional, and community levels. Participants advocated for strengthening Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) and National/Regional Initiatives (NRIs) to create sub-national and local-level implementation mechanisms.

– **Integration of Emerging Technologies and New Challenges**: Discussions centered on how WSIS can adapt to address new technological developments, particularly AI, while maintaining its foundational principles. Participants noted the disconnect between AI for Good summits (which attract large audiences) and WSIS processes, suggesting better integration of new technology streams into existing WSIS architecture.

– **Improving Coordination and Reducing Silos**: Significant attention was given to strengthening coordination among the 39 UN agencies involved in WSIS implementation, moving from competition to collaboration, establishing liaison mechanisms, and addressing sustainability challenges amid reduced funding and UN reform pressures.

– **Enhanced Measurement and Accountability**: Participants called for better metrics to measure WSIS impact, more transparent reporting on achievements and gaps, stronger links between WSIS action lines and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and engagement of top-level consultants to improve measurement methodologies.

## Overall Tone

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with participants demonstrating genuine engagement and expertise. While there were critical observations about current limitations (such as lack of visibility, funding challenges, and organizational silos), the tone remained solution-oriented and optimistic about WSIS’s potential. The atmosphere was informal yet professional, with facilitators encouraging open dialogue and emphasizing that there were “no wrong answers.” The energy remained consistently high across the two-hour session, with participants actively contributing ideas and building on each other’s suggestions.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jennifer Chung** – ITU colleague, involved in organizing the WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe

– **William Lee** – WSIS Plus 20 Policy Lead for the Australian Government, moderator from Australia

– **Jimson Olufuye** – From Abuja, Nigeria, private sector representative, table moderator

– **Joyce Chen** – From APNIC (Asia Pacific Network Information Centre), table moderator

– **Isabelle Lois** – Table moderator (specific role/organization not clearly mentioned)

– **Participant** – Role/expertise not specified

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members with various backgrounds including government officers, academia, private sector, development agencies

**Additional speakers:**

– **Francesca** – Academia sector

– **Vera Bedard** – Government sector

– **Pamela** – From Malaysia, government officer

– **Kyle** – From California

– **Marcelo Martinez** – Works in support groups, has been following WSIS conversations for 10 years

– **Brian** – Background in information/libraries field

– **Nelia** – From Georgia

– Various other unnamed participants from different countries including Malaysia, South Africa, Czech Republic, and representing different sectors (government, private sector, academia, development agencies)

# WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe: Final Session Report

## Executive Summary

This report documents the final session of the WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe, moderated by William Lee, WSIS Plus 20 Policy Lead for the Australian Government. The session brought together diverse stakeholders including government representatives, private sector participants, academia, and civil society members to discuss the future of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) beyond 2025. The discussion was structured around three key questions explored through rotating table conversations, with findings intended to inform the UN General Assembly review process.

The session highlighted both the continued relevance of WSIS’s multi-stakeholder architecture and key challenges requiring attention, including the need for greater inclusivity, enhanced local-level implementation, improved coordination among UN agencies, and better integration of emerging technologies into existing frameworks.

## Session Structure and Methodology

The session employed a rotating table format with participants moving between three discussion tables, each facilitated by experienced moderators: Jimson Olufuye from Nigeria representing the private sector, Joyce Chen from APNIC, and Isabelle Lois. This structure enabled participants to engage with multiple perspectives on each key question.

The discussion was organized around three fundamental questions:

1. What should be the collective vision for WSIS beyond 2025?

2. How can WSIS continue to support global development goals?

3. How can WSIS implementation mechanisms be strengthened?

Jennifer Chung from ITU provided organizational support, emphasizing that the session aimed to capture diverse viewpoints to feed into the broader WSIS review process.

## Key Discussion Themes and Findings

### Vision for WSIS Beyond 2025

Participants emphasized that WSIS’s multi-stakeholder architecture remains effective after two decades. However, they stressed the urgent need to integrate emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, data governance, and cybersecurity, into the existing framework rather than creating parallel processes.

Jimson Olufuye highlighted the importance of attracting “all categories of stakeholders including more private sector, youth, and people with special needs for meaningful participation.” Joyce Chen emphasized the need for “full participation by underrepresented and marginalized communities, including indigenous voices” while maintaining rights-based and human rights-centered approaches.

A significant concern emerged regarding WSIS’s visibility compared to newer initiatives. One participant asked, “Why is it that AI for good is more popular than WSIS?” This observation sparked discussion about communication strategies and public engagement, with participants noting that despite WSIS being a foundational framework for digital governance, it lacks the visibility of more recent initiatives.

The concept of transitioning from “Homo sapiens to Homo digital” was discussed as part of the evolving digital landscape that WSIS must address.

### Supporting Global Development Goals

Participants advocated for leveraging the existing WSIS-SDG mapping framework while focusing implementation at national, sub-national, and community levels. The WSIS stock-taking database, containing 15,000 projects, was mentioned as a valuable resource for tracking implementation.

Jimson Olufuye proposed strengthening “IGF and National/Regional IGFs to move toward sub-national and local community engagement.” Joyce Chen emphasized the need for “train-the-trainers programmes and grassroots capacity building to connect policy level with on-ground realities.”

Due to the urgency of 2030 targets, Olufuye suggested establishing “quarterly engagement processes instead of annual ones.” Participants also discussed the fundamental need for electricity access as a prerequisite for digital access, highlighting infrastructure challenges in many regions.

### Strengthening Implementation Mechanisms

The most critical discussions centered on strengthening WSIS implementation mechanisms. Participants identified significant coordination problems among the 39 UN agencies involved in the UN Group on the Information Society (UNGIS), with Joyce Chen observing that there is “more competition than collaboration” among agencies amid reduced funding.

Participants proposed several concrete solutions:

– Creating liaison positions between different WSIS mechanisms (IGF, UNGIS, WSIS Forum)

– Engaging external consultants for measurement and evaluation rather than allowing agencies to assess their own work

– Updating UNGIS structures to include partners currently in observer status

– Implementing train-the-trainers programs for grassroots capacity building

The discussion also referenced the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines as relevant to improving participation mechanisms.

## Areas of Agreement and Key Challenges

### Strong Agreement Areas

Participants agreed on several fundamental issues:

– The urgent need for greater inclusion of underrepresented communities

– The necessity of focusing implementation at local, national, and community levels

– The importance of integrating new technologies like AI into existing WSIS architecture

– The need for better coordination among UN agencies and reduced competition between them

### Critical Challenges Identified

**Visibility and Awareness**: WSIS lacks public awareness despite being a foundational framework for digital governance, as highlighted by comparisons with the AI for Good summit’s popularity.

**Funding and Sustainability**: Joyce Chen highlighted “sustainability challenges due to reduced funding” and the impact of UN reform and budget cuts on maintaining human resources and institutional continuity.

**Inclusion Barriers**: Structural barriers prevent marginalized communities from participating in WSIS processes. Specific accessibility needs were discussed, including childcare facilities (referenced in the context of ICANN meetings) and sign language interpretation.

**Coordination Challenges**: The scale of coordinating among 40 agencies was questioned, with participants debating whether meaningful collaboration is realistic without structural changes.

## Practical Recommendations

Participants proposed several actionable solutions:

– Quarterly rather than annual engagement processes to meet 2030 targets

– Liaison positions between different WSIS mechanisms to improve coordination

– External measurement and evaluation to ensure objective assessment

– Enhanced train-the-trainers programs for grassroots capacity building

– Better integration of emerging technology discussions into existing WSIS frameworks

– Improved accessibility measures including sign language interpretation and childcare support

## Conclusion

The final session demonstrated both the continued relevance of the WSIS framework and the need for significant improvements in implementation and coordination. Participants showed commitment to preserving WSIS’s proven multi-stakeholder approach while adapting to contemporary challenges including emerging technologies, funding constraints, and inclusion barriers.

The discussion revealed a community willing to engage in honest assessment of current limitations while working toward practical solutions. The emphasis on local implementation, better coordination, and enhanced accessibility provides a foundation for WSIS’s continued evolution in addressing global digital governance challenges.

The outcomes of this session will contribute to the formal WSIS review process and inform discussions leading to the UN General Assembly review, building on the collaborative multi-stakeholder approach that has characterized WSIS for two decades.

William Lee: you should get in there, get data science in your belt, do this, get your car picture. Afternoon, everyone. My name is William. I’m from Australia. I’m moderating this session with our great ITU colleagues. Make sure you grab a box for lunch. I think there’s a few different varieties around, so if you haven’t got the one you’re looking for, there’s a couple spares at the back. We’ll actually kick start the discussion in about 10 minutes once everyone’s had a chance to eat. So dive in, and we’ll get started in about 10. Cheers.

Audience: Hi. Oh, yes, because there are only three facilitators, but more tables than there are facilitators. I don’t know if you can see it but it is much thinner. So yes, thank you. Yeah, but it’s not true. I mean, you wouldn’t know what it does. So I hope to have family in the future. Yeah. So I’m going to give it to you. Are you going to give it to me? Is it your birthday? It’s my birthday. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It’s just wonderful to have you here. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much for joining us in this finale of the WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe that we have organized for the whole week. And this Knowledge Cafe, particularly, is very important, I think, because it talks about the vision. And over the past few days, we have been engaging in focused discussions throughout several topics. On Monday, we began with the voices of youth. Hearing directly from the next generation about the vision and expectation. And then on Tuesday, we reflected on the two decades of WSIS, including the implementation of the WSIS action lines. On Wednesday, we highlighted the role of the multi-stakeholderism to sustain the WSIS process. And yesterday, we also heard the stories on the ground. So the success stories implemented by the WSIS stocktaking and prizes. And today, in our final cafe, we look ahead, of course, celebrating 20-year milestones. It is something that we are proud of. And we would like to hear more from you about what is the vision of the WSIS process beyond 2025. And I think this Knowledge Cafe will be really critical. And it will be captured as well, of course, the summary of this session in our outcome document. And it will be feed into the UNGA review in December 2025. And I hope your appetite has been filled up and you’re ready to engage with us. We have a few questions that we would like to ask with you and engage and having the conversations. So I have my colleague with me, William, from Australia, who will be moderating today’s session. And over to you, William. Thank you.

William Lee: Great. Thanks, everyone. And thanks for joining us. I’m just going to stand over here so I’m not getting blinded by the projector. And I think we have a slide that’s got some questions for today’s session. But first, let me introduce myself, my name is William Lee, I’m the WSIS Plus 20 Policy Lead for the Australian Government. So you will have seen me probably around either IGF or the WSIS Forum and I hope to have some really great conversations here today as well. We also have three excellent moderators who are sitting hidden in plain sight on your tables who will be helping me out in terms of today’s session. So we have Joyce, Joyce I don’t know if you want to put your hand up, excellent. We’ve got Isabel, Isabel’s there and I think Jimson, are you number three for us? Excellent, yeah fantastic. So if you’re sitting on a table that doesn’t have one of those three people on it and you’d like to join one of the facilitated conversations, you’re absolutely more than welcome to move up and I’ll be looking after this table, table right here, otherwise you’re more than welcome to participate as well at the back. As my colleagues from ITU have introduced, this session is really about the future of WSIS, which is fantastic to see, our collective vision beyond 2025 and the purpose of this session is really to unpick where we would like to see WSIS go forward. So we had lots of conversations this week about where WSIS is, all of the achievements to date, some of the areas where there are future opportunities or are future areas of focus and today is really about pulling all of that together and saying where do we collectively want to take that forward. I don’t know if we can get the slide with the questions on it, perhaps, I’m looking, excellent. So we’ve got three questions, we’re going to have about 10 minutes each for each. question and then after each question we’ll come back and hear from each of the groups as to what you think is the answer and outputs to each question. On your tables you’ll find some pens, you’ll find some pieces of paper, you’ll find some cool stickers which I think are pretty cool so if you haven’t collected a sticker I would encourage you to take that but really we’re looking for all ideas, all points of view, all different perspectives. There’s no right answer, there’s no wrong answer, there’s no answer that is silly, there’s no answer that shouldn’t be shared so take the opportunity to have some conversations amongst colleagues and through that dot down some of those key points and then after about 10 minutes we’ll regroup, hear from each of the groups as to kind of what is coming up to the surface for you. Our first question today is what is our collective vision for WSIS beyond 2025 and I know we have the WSIS vision itself for a people-centred inclusive and development orientated information society. I think this question is inviting us to kind of unpack that a little bit more, what is it that we want to see out of the WSIS process going forward. I will foreshadow the other two questions that are coming so you can start to think about them. The second question is around how WSIS can help to continue to achieve global development goals and the third is around the WSIS mechanisms that implement them. We will come back to those questions though as we go through the day but for now I would encourage you to continue to have lunch, continue to have some conversations. Focusing in on this first question, and then start to jot down some of those points. And at about half past 12, we’ll regroup and I’ll invite our facilitators, Joyce, Jimson, Isabelle to join, to take the microphone and to share what their groups have come up with as well as anyone else that wants to join before we move on to our next question. Does that sound like a good plan? Yes? Excellent, cool. I’ll leave you to it and come back to you in about 10 minutes. Enjoy their lunch and enjoy some great conversation.

Audience: That’s a team. That’s a team. Because that group is a team. Team. You can pull the chair over. I’ve got the angle. But this is my chair, I can find it for you. Oh, it’s cool. I’ll pull my chair for you, okay? Oh, okay. The first thing I would like to suggest that we should have is Kyle, okay? The one that we could look for. I think we have a lot of wonderful, very valuable volunteers that we’ve had. Just facilitating. So it’s really just a free conversation, a couple of questions, but I want to frame this question a little differently just to help guide our thinking a bit better. Let’s first get ourselves pointed out. I might start, I know we only have about 10 minutes, but I might start first just introducing ourselves and getting to know one another. And then we will go to the questions. We believe the world will still be amazing, 20, 30 years, 40, right? So how do we see? Let’s go. First, we’d like to start by introducing ourselves first. We still have ideas. We still have, hello everybody, my name is Brian. We still have new technology, blockchain, AI, we’ve got something new. So what is the vision about you? Would there be more and more participation at the World Bank, or old people participation? So what is your vision? My vision is that we should attract all categories of stakeholders, so more private sector can be represented in this crisis. And also, of course, youth, but also more representations and concrete actions from the various categories of the stakeholders. Okay, very good. So deepening multi-stakeholder participation. And effective partnership, really avoid duplication and involving this platform, all the stakeholders that are able to produce results in terms of what we want to achieve. Thank you. So meaningful participation and implementation of the vision. Okay, so any other ideas? I mean, I think maybe we can go from like a modeler to the modeler and the promoter to the information, meaning targeting all kinds of the population everywhere. Okay, the special population or the elderly, or even targeting the children, the younger children or the special group of population. Let me ask you a question. Targeting children. The moment you have one, so it’s not going to be… No, no, no, no, no. I think we can go for the information platform. Okay, that reminds me. You know, in ICANN, that’s Internet Corporation for Children and Young Adults, there was an agitation that, okay, there should be a place for babies so that their mothers can also come. And after the agitation, I found the tradition, every ICANN meeting, you have a baby section, so you have babies. Are you thinking directly, even here? So like, yeah, no, there’s no telling who they are. Are you thinking? No, no, no, no, no. Okay. No, no, no, no, no. Meaning? I think it’s just a history, and I’m contributing to the work that I’ve done. For her, for us, for me. But I am an individual. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Okay. And Luke, you didn’t mention what your background was, apart from, you know, being in the ITU. Is this? Yeah. So let me ask you a question. It’s an actual question. Apart from that, yes, you’re taking that. What is, in terms of education, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, oh, thank you. IP addresses, the accounts, the numbers, these are the things that allow your advisors to help. And we do that regionally. So across the entire Asia-Pacific region, that’s what you’re thinking. And as for my role in the UNFET, I am a Strategic Relations Senior Advisor. So that’s me. You will meet on the website, because I’m actually directed in the UNFET by Jennifer, but she’s already gone back. I think I will give you half an hour to get to the questions that you think I’ve answered. I think the question asks, what is our collective vision of visits beyond 2025? But I think to help frame our thoughts, we might want to tackle this question first from what is your vision of what visits might look like beyond the people who get to come home from that visit. So anything that you want to add to that? Yeah, because I think if this book is going to be published when we organize a visit, there will be a sign language translator for the visitors, next time for the staff, also they can join. So I think that’s a good idea. I don’t have a sign language at the moment, so I’m very concerned. Okay, Nelia from Gurdia, but not in Gursi. In Gursi, no. Okay, I think for the visitors, maybe we can start from Francesca. Okay, sorry, I will have to ask you to mention your name. My name is Francesca. Francesca, okay. I’m Bedard. Vera Bedard, okay. Yes. What do you do? I work for the government. The sector, are you government, private sector? No, I said academia. Academia. Private sector. Private sector, okay. I am in the development agency, German development agency. Okay. Oh, okay. I’m a government officer. Okay. Yeah, I’m a government officer. Yeah, I work for the government. Me too. Okay. I work for the government. We are from Malaysia. Oh, okay, wonderful. My name is Bedard. Bedard. I don’t know. Kyle. Kyle. Yeah, from California. Malaysia as well. Oh, wonderful. I’m Pamela. Pamela. Nice to meet you. Oh, nice to meet you. What was your first name? Sorry. My son. My son. My son. So, welcome. Thank you so much. Thank you. You too. Thank you. So, we can. Thank you. In fact, when that happened, it got far more than we knew. We didn’t know what to do with it. Now that we have, I think. It’s a shortcut. The main reason. We must reach all our obligations when we reach the 20th anniversary. We can say that. We’re kind of close to the 20th anniversary. Because we watched the 20th anniversary. Yes, exactly. And that’s a close call. That’s a good mark on us. And it’s on the world. 21% has reached the 20th anniversary. We have five years ahead. And we’re definitely 75% or more not to reach the 20th anniversary. We have thousands. This is close to what I’ve done. I think we’re close to the 20th anniversary. It was the general. But it was not the 20th anniversary. We have been talking about it for a long time. And that’s a long time. We have been there. But it’s easier to say that it’s not. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not. How do we bring the people with us? I would let you all echo our thoughts. You have to try a little! No. Ok? This might be a roundabout, but I know there will be some people who come here and I’ll let them around. I’m just saying because I did not terminate all of my digital work, I went to a public meeting that morning, but because that was all over, I wanted to seek a more interstitial sense of friendship that was still in place, especially in this space. I just happened to, almost by coincidence or happenstance, run across all of the Elysium sites and I thought, this sounds pretty good. So I think at least then I get a sense as to what is the Elysium process and what is the organizing entity from the UN or ITU, what is it that we’re focusing in on to help get this word out, the massive building in the moment. And it took me five days to figure that out. For instance, my dad had to go back in my generation, but we don’t know anything about all this stuff. The US is one of those countries that would be overflown. In one plenary they mentioned a very good point, that AI requires a lot of energy, and we also need to think about the marginalized groups. So it’s a lot of marginalized groups. A lot of gallery at levels of government. So from my generation, I think it’s important to get close and hear their voices. One voice that I do not see at all here is indigenous voices. So in the US you have a multitude of Native American tribes that are not hearing. And the reason I’ve been told is they’re not hearing as well as the work is done by the government. And if the government doesn’t get the word out, then they’re not participating. Canada, yeah. Right. Do you think, would you like to introduce yourself to the group? Sure. My name is Marcelo Martinez. I work in the support groups. I’ve been following this conversation for, you know, 10 years now. It is very hard to understand all this. The conflicts and everything that’s going on. And we have, at this moment, through domestic conversations, we have a very holistic model of work that the government has established. We walk the talk, I can say that. Not many countries do that. And we’re engaging in conversations right now, exactly, with a view to establish international relations. That’s a great name. What is the name again? So that I can credit you. We are trying to find some optimism and optimism around it. Thank you. And just on that, for those of you who might be quite new to this process, there are also sort of parallel processes that have happened in the Middle East. It was discussed when you were here. For example, there was a very, very great initiative that was met on the aisle last time. An initiative of which came out the Sao Paulo Multidimensional Guidelines. And I encourage you, as you are starting on this journey, to read that as well, because it does contain an approach towards how we align multidimensional and multistakeholder processes together. And it does give quite specific recommendations for how that can be done, in order to achieve that multistakeholder vision that we have in the WSIS, for example. So that’s one thing that I could highlight. And thank you very much to your community for convening the global community to do that as well. Go ahead. Sorry. Sorry, that was next on the aisle. Plus 10, because that’s 10 years after the original next Monday aisle. And then the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines. Sorry. My first time here in Geneva. I had a good conference. And what I realized, what I’m asking myself is, why is the one so detached from the other? Because if you’re not into the field, you won’t hear of the WSIS process. And it’s a very important process, because everyone uses ICTs, everyone uses AI right now, every child uses it, but no one knows that there’s a whole European process around it. It has been more than 20 years. It actually started in 2003. Yeah. So now they start counting from Tunis in 2005. So now it’s 20 years from Tunis. But in Geneva, the first WSIS was 2003. Yeah. And it was 98 when they called for it, so it’s even older. Yeah. But the effective big summit, you know, with all the heads of state, there were 3,000 people. Yeah. So I think that’s a missed opportunity, because the AI for Good summit, it’s somewhat better known, of course. It attracts all the public. So why is it not connected stronger to the UN process? Why is it so detached from each other? The AI for Good summit, yeah. It’s totally separated, also different style. Yeah. And no one over there talks about WSIS here at the center stage. Yeah, I know. So why don’t they do this? Because we are also complaining always about lack of multistakeholderism and so on. Rightly so. But if it’s not that known, I mean, everyone knows about the climate conferences, for instance. Like every child knows about them. It’s also a UN process. Why doesn’t everyone know about WSIS? Yeah. Yeah. It’s a valid question. That’s also one of my ambition. Like I’m wishing that everyone knows about WSIS and become engaged. Well, my interest being that, because following your concern and your question, WSIS is not so discussed at the national level, mostly. Most countries don’t discuss it, mostly. So I think there has to be something of a commitment or improvement in the WSIS policy reviews to enable government to encourage this, to discuss it at the national level. Because it’s so important, transparent and standard space. I don’t know if there’s a potential to change it, given the potential of many countries and boundaries that are starting to evolve, where the Internet could be different. So when you have major players that perhaps are interested in taking different boundaries, then the Internet becomes very important. And then, with the lack of indigenous voice, in South Africa, they report. And I’m telling you, all of Africa, 54 countries, all of them are the tribes. And I can tell you that they reach principally because they would have to be informed on digital sovereignty, as opposed to, in my country… I also share all the issues. In my country, we have to make them feel like we are the government. We need to close the borders. We’ve got to check on all of those things.

William Lee: So let’s finish up the last of the bits. the conversations that you’ve been having about this first question, and I hope, and what I’ve heard, wondering, hearing, listening into bits of conversations around the room, is that there’s been some really, really good conversations so far. I’m going to stand at the back here this time to hear from all of our tables as we go through. So, gather your thoughts. I’ll give you 30 seconds to think about what you’re going to say, moderators, and then we’ll turn to the groups. Let’s turn first to this table over here, and Jimson, I don’t know if you want to kick us off in terms of updating. I think there’s a button on the microphone that will, just sort of up here next to the, Jimson, up the top somewhere. Yep. Okay, great. All right, thank you, Williams,

Jimson Olufuye: and I recognize the member of my team here. It has been a very robust discussion on the question, what is our collective vision of WSIS beyond 2025? My name, again, is Jimson Olufoye from Abuja, Nigeria, private sector. Well, everybody contributed, as mentioned. Firstly, it says that we hope that WSIS, going forward, will be able to attract all stakeholders, more stakeholders, so even youth, so that they can mainly participate in the process and also be involved in the implementation of all the action lines and targets. In particular, there was an emphasis that it should be borderless, that is, we should open it up much more, even to children, such in a way that we can encourage maybe in next WSIS meeting, mothers with their babies can come. So WSIS can prepare a care center, okay, so that those that are just giving birth, they can also come and their baby will be here, and the baby will be getting to hearing the vibe gradually. So they know the future. And then also we look at the youths that should be engaged in terms of solid education from 12 years old, in some countries 18 years, 16 years, but the suggestion was made that from 12 years old, we should really begin to groom young ones for WSIS activity or the ICT activity, and also give opportunity to people of special needs and produce tools for them. It was observed that in WSIS this year, there was no support for people with disabilities so much, like those with hearing issues, although we saw something in AI for Good, you know, but here it was lacking in WSIS. And then WSIS should continue, okay, so that we can continue to push to reach our goal. We have not reached the goal yet, because even SDG, according to U.N. reports, is about 21 percent achievement right now, and we are targeting 2030. And so we need to bridge the divide, make an effort. Then reaffirm the commitment to Geneva and Tunisia documents, okay, we need to reaffirm it. And then there is an interesting one that, you know, we are the Homo sapiens, and we don’t know what will happen in 20 years, 30 years, 50 years’ time. Maybe we’ll become Homo digital, okay? So maybe some chips will be embedded, and we’ll be able to… transmit, talk more at advanced stage. But however, it is said that as we build capacity, connectivity, we should not lose our sense of creativity, our sense of agility, such that we can even continue to use our brain. When you go to a gym, you exercise your leg and leg. But brain need to be exercised. So we need to ensure that whatever solution, however it is down the line, we must not lose our ability for reasonability, to think and to be engaged. Not that you just go to AI immediately for everything. And so that sensibility needs to be there. Many of our people still lack electricity. It’s important we need to work on it, even climate issue. And education need to be transformed for positive use of technology to preserve, yes, creativity, as I mentioned. Then there was a fundamental question raised. Why is it that AI for good is more popular than WSIS? Actually, I went to AI for good. The place is massive. Oh, my. It’s massive. If you haven’t been there, you have to be. It’s massive, this one. So why is it so? Because WSIS is the grandfather. WSIS is the main, main superset. And AI for good just came. And yet it’s, you know. So what do we need to do? And we got a good language here that maybe in part of the WSIS Plus 20 review, there should be a line to give more visibility to WSIS, even at the country level. Because of course, there was a reference to South Africa. They produced a report, 20-year report. But you know what? Out of the 54 countries in Africa, only South Africa produced a report. So that underscored the need for that kind of visibility if we want to really achieve something. We have our scribe. who kind of fill in the gap where I’ve missed something. Yes, ascribe. Okay, to the left, to the center. Thank you.

William Lee: Thank you. What a great, what a great group and what a powerful statement. I love the idea of getting kids involved early and like keeping them involved. Well, what’s that? In a few generations, we’ll just have like a WSIS generation. I don’t know, that sounds really good. I love the idea of engagement. Obviously, Geneva, TUNE is really, really important and obviously reducing barriers to participation, very powerful as well. I’m gonna turn to Isabel now, who’s gonna read out the outcomes from this next group. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thanks, Will. So we had a lot of discussions based on trying to first understand what does collective vision mean in a sense that we are different stakeholders here around the table. So we have different maybe thoughts, priorities, or visions of what WSIS is, what it’s delivering and then what it could deliver after the review. So after 2025. So that was the first part of our conversation, but we did come to sort of a few agreements or a few thoughts that I can share with all of you. So the baseline is that the WSIS architecture, so more than just the WSIS Forum, but all of the parts of the architecture is quite robust, it functions quite well and it has delivered in a good manner, in a good fashion for the past 20 years, but there’s still a lot of work that remains and we have new challenges. So the thing that we hope, or at least around this table, our small collective vision is that the WSIS architecture could integrate the new challenges, be that subject matter challenges in the sense of AI, data, cyber, information integrity, working on digital device or things like that, that’s one part, but then also working. on how they can be implemented throughout the structure, so these are sort of the two points that we raised. And then we had a few questions. How can we make sure that that process of delivering on these new challenges functions in a good way? Do we need to have indicators to be able to measure how far we’ve gotten in those implementations? How can we make sure that we are able to have a snapshot of seeing everything that is going on, seeing what has been done, what remains to be done, what should we focus on next? So that was one of the sort of questions we raised here. The other part is including the multi-stakeholder perspective and elements throughout the system and throughout implementation as well, and that goes with also using and utilizing every single aspect of the WSIS family or architecture, so that means using the IGF, using the NRIs, and making sure that all of the local regional elements are also included within the WSIS sort of architecture, because we have principles, we have ideas at a higher level, UN level, but then the work needs to be done in local communities, in regional aspects, and we have to make sure that these two parts are connected in a good way. We discussed as well sort of the questions of the GDC. How are we dealing with the GDC, the new political commitments we have there within the WSIS architecture? Should we have a joint implementation? How are we thinking about sort of fitting those two potential systems together? I think nobody wants a duplication, but it still remains a bit unclear on how we can fit them in the best way together. I mean, Switzerland has many ideas, but I don’t want to impose them as ideas from the table, so I will refrain, but please come and talk to me if you want to hear them. And then maybe the last point that I want to emphasize is the point on inclusion. We also had a good start of a discussion there. I think we could have gotten much further, but that inclusion is something that we should keep in mind and bear in mind now for the review, but also moving forward. I mean, the people-centered aspect of WSIS is very relevant, is something that we want to highlight and want to focus on, but making sure that we have inclusion, be it by the different countries, the regional groups, be it by having multi-stakeholder inclusion. So I think that, and also inclusion then within each topic. So I think that’s the last point I want to emphasize, and I hope I wasn’t too long.

William Lee: Excellent. Thanks, Isabelle, and to this group as well. Some really interesting kind of linkages already emerging around kind of taking action, still, still, WSIS is still relevant, inclusion, people-centred, finding ways to break down barriers to participation. I wonder what we’re going to hear from this group. And I see you have a microphone, Joyce, so go ahead.

Joyce Chen: Hello everyone. I’m Joyce from APNIC. Nice to meet all of you. And yes, we had a lot of very similar ideas. I loved Jimson’s energy, but I can only aspire to it. So I think this group started off, you know, sort of talking about actually who is not in this room. And we talked about, you know, that there needs to be a lot more capacity building, there needs to be a more outreach for people to know more about WSIS, just the fact that it’s even happening, I think the word is not exactly out there for a lot of the underrepresented communities. So the people who have been doing this work and have done it for many, many years, those who have followed WSIS from the beginning, it’s kind of become almost our livelihood. But there are so many other underrepresented communities who are out there who are not even aware that there are decisions and policy discussions that are being made on their behalf that they may not be aware of. So that was how we started off. And so we went into really thinking about, well, there needs to be full participation by all, particularly those who are underrepresented or marginalized communities. We talked a little bit about indigenous voices and how they could be better heard. And then we also talked another point about inclusion of all voices. So one is about participation, but the other one is about inclusion. And that really also looks at digital equity slash equality, depending on how you want to see it. that the WSIS needs to continue being rights-based, needs to be human rights-centered. And I fully appreciate that my table is actually a microcosm of multi-stakeholderism itself. Everybody has a different sort of stakeholder group and very, very nicely bringing all these issues to the fore. And then because of that, we then also talked about the fact that the WSIS needs to continue its nature of multi-stakeholderism. And how we could use, for example, the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines to complement, to understand the approach that complements multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism. We also talked about the WSIS needing to be open, transparent, all these very good values that it has had all these years, and to continue having these values. We did also talk about other issues that were not just directly on this question, but kind of touching other questions. I will just very quickly run through. One was about how we would contribute to the GDC and how to make the GDC more coherent and easy to understand. The other was, where should AI sit? And our table felt that it would be very important for the AI to be included into the WSIS, and that it should be covered by WSIS as well. We also did start talking about growing geopolitical tensions and the creation of boundaries. As we know, the internet is boundary-less. And so there is a huge potential for internet fragmentation because of these tensions that have been growing in terms of digital sovereignty, for example. That’s my summary, but if I had missed anything out.

William Lee: Great. Thanks, Joyce. And thanks to this whole group as well for some really insightful reflections around capacity building, human rights, the challenge of AI, I think that ties in really nicely with Jimson’s point and this group’s point about how AI is. so much bigger than WSIS, and WSIS being the grandfather of all digital tech, which I think is a great kind of linkage here, multilingualism, sorry, multistakeholderism, and the São Paulo Guidelines as well. Just quickly, because I think a lot of the points that have our kind of group talked about have also been raised by other tables, but our group also talked a little bit about bridging digital divides, having meaningful connectivity, ensuring that there is a universal level of connectivity, addressing things like unilateral coercive measures, managing community-led development in the public interest with resources that support that, and with a shared commitment and understanding. Supporting digital literacy was seen as really, really important through both leaders and through education, and building digital leadership and strong digital governance, and we had a really great example of sort of a train-the-trainers type model going on in Singapore and the Philippines, which was a really interesting piece. We talked a little bit about the opportunity that WSIS could bring and the opportunity to leverage regional organisations to help take forward some of the WSIS vision, the need for it to continue to have a broad mandate and to implement the GDC’s commitments through the WSIS process, to mainstream ethics across the digital landscape. We talked a little bit about this and kind of the need to have holistic thinking, not to think in silos, and also to kind of bring in the issue around the impacts of big tech and the responsibility there. And then finally, we talked a little bit about the importance of kind of linking ethics and impact, and having really clear impacts as to what WSIS is delivering and what WSIS still needs to deliver. and that WSIS is just another angle to tackle some of these really complex digital challenges. So I think that really ties well and neatly with kind of all of the comments that we’ve heard from all of the tables. I’ve got lots of notes, so that’s really great. We might turn now to our next question, which is how can WSIS continue to help achieve the global development goals? And you can read that as the SDGs, or you could read that as broader global development objectives or regional development objectives. We’ll try and keep this one a little bit shorter, because I think this is kind of a little bit of a, what we would say in Australia, a rabbit hole. Basically like we could spend hours talking about this topic and not get to the conclusion. But have a think about perhaps what are some of those, maybe the top three, top three things that WSIS can do to help achieve the global development goals as you see it. Let’s give us about seven to ten minutes and then we’ll regroup and we’ll hear the top three from each group. So we’ll pause there, get the conversations going, continue to have lunch and we’ll regroup shortly. Cheers.

Audience: Thank you. Thank you. Even though I’m not a learning specialist, but I’ve heard a lot of things about WSIS, so what’s your view on it? I’ll be actually the architect of the team, not me, because this is what it’s all about. So as I was saying, my field is information, so I always believe, I’m always an advocate for libraries, so they deal with information. I believe that WSIS is more information, but that’s a small area. It deals with the broader aspect of it, so I think like WSIS is really relevant in all aspects, especially right now, navigating an information divide. The only trickery there is how to connect in their specialized field or research to understand what the public wants to find, whether it’s science, citizen science comes in, and one of those things that actually what we’re doing right now is speaking of people passing something, and it’s the bad news. We were saying that you should not just be good at research, but you should be good at science, so that’s kind of the core of our work, which I thought, I can’t really point out on global development goals, although I’m in humanities, but I think that information encompasses everything, so it’s there everywhere. It’s nice to be here at the international level, so I think an organization like WSIS is kind of playing together like this, so I can have them on board, so I think it’s nice to be here. That kind of ties in as well with the point we were talking about in the previous question, and perhaps an area of opportunity, is that by understanding, is that kind of open door that we can support. I wanted to emphasize on the how, about a lot of things that we’re talking about, is that how WSIS can actually bridge the researchers, the policy makers, to the general public, because our goal is to reach everyone, not only inclusivity, but all the diversities I can mention. This probably would be a platform, imagine being open to work. WSIS could be a platform to reach out to other communities. I like that, and WSIS is a good one. I think one of the strengths of WSIS really is brand recognition, right? It’s a good strategy to kind of showcase. It could mean SDGs, or it could mean a broader framework, so it’s a generic term. But I think the question is really saying, how can WSIS help to achieve development goals outside WSIS? It’s not going to help develop a goal in a general way. And so, in terms of where the conversation is going to go from here, we’ve talked about with the model of the whole climate, between people-centred, community-centred, business-centred, business stakeholders. Probably not relevant much. Thank you. We’ve talked about the measurement, measurable impact of how great practices, we’ve talked about with it being a platform to break down barriers, make it easier for people that are interested in development. So, yeah, I think that was typical. How many of you have come here? Are you aware where we’ve got to? Yeah, okay. I haven’t got to add anything on the wrong note. So, let’s throw him in the deep end. Oh, yeah, exactly. Well, of course we know the answers now. We’re just waiting to hear what you think about it. On a regional or a country level, I’m going to throw the question to you. How do you think, you see, I’m fairly new and I’m not really focusing on it, but how do you think we move forward to help achieve the global development goals, whether it’s SDGs or whatever? What WSIS does is very well known, what WSIS is perhaps very unknown, in the sense of everyone understands digital, everyone understands, and as a professional to provide for success is also to self-diagnose a threat of digital venture capital. The fact of the matter is that WSIS is quite enabling of that action, I think, in the ventures towards video output, not the kind of framing behind it, and so I think this is, in a sense, people like us that are interested in this type of framework and in searching the output and that’s where politicians and other people get interested with evolving those new computers down the school, whatever they’ve already invented, and they get access to knowledge that they might not have had, the skill of a technician, those are the types of projects and I think, for me, the opportunities for those in the digital context and on a digital level, and we need to develop together, and hopefully they are concentrated in every area, so we can go down, we can develop, we have this chance to develop, I hope that it will ignite WSIS’s discussion on some of these kind of, I don’t know, that’s my thing, it’s on the level of the… Yeah, because looking into the role of the strategies and how WSIS can achieve the global development goals is also, actually, also is important to look into the essence that there’s always a challenge within WSIS to be able to achieve their goals, to achieve how to strategize in order to fulfill their roles in global development. Just a thought, I was thinking that, like, yeah, I’m thinking, yeah, the first question I have in mind is, like, I’m doing this from my perspective, it’s not really very knowledgeable, like, I knew what had passed them, but the next thing that I do is, like, there are probably some challenges inside, so I like the idea of how we would pull down the fence, and so what I’m trying to do, with no, basically, bearing in mind that WSIS, I mean, I support, so I’m trying to teach myself as much as I can now, so that I can pass that on to some of the other groups, and these terms can educate their groups, these are more as citizens, we’re not talking about techie people, we’re talking about everyday people, yeah, but we can’t ask for things if you don’t know what they’re like, right, so like everyone, you need to know it first, so that I already, like, three months ago, I was doing a workshop, and this day, I’m basically in the Czech Republic, but the Czech Republic, but I knew more than they did, and that’s all we need to know, so, but actually, our, the scholars, we are a research institute, the scholars compose the resources of this institute are studying Middle Eastern and European languages, so that covers languages, history, and what not, international relations, and so forth, so this is my smile, it’s interesting, but it isn’t when you tell them, but they don’t understand that, so that’s what I’m trying to do now, but you need to know, yeah, I’m thinking, so that the word that comes up here is Czech Republic, you know, so, because I’m also trying to, I’m trying to say, you don’t have to know all of it, but we can think of our own processes, but we can play that role in the other things around, especially in the UN and other international organizations that have the gas, so, and yeah, so what happens is that there’s still elements of hallucination, but again, it might change, it could be changing, as I was saying right now, I did a study six months ago, and I don’t know if I can do it again, but it’s a center of differential intelligence, learning of itself, so, but yeah, that was the initial study, so, really, I mean, I’ve heard some people say, oh, I’m familiar with this process, but I can do this, I can do this, so, you know, I think, oh, speaking, identifying, oh, speaking, identifying, so, I think, oh, so, I suppose, I think, simplify is going to be a key word, I don’t know that, it’s not very accurate, I did, I think we spoke to say AI before, and it was not yet very accurate, but yeah, it retrieves information and subjects and summarizes, gives you the picture, so, it’s useful, but not accurate all the time, there’s a discrepancy between it, in a Latinized text, than in a non-Latinized script. And how is that, so maybe training, but on, I don’t think, where are you from, which one, I’m thinking, if my colleagues, some of my colleagues are studying about Iran, no, I don’t think so. Last 30 seconds. start to gather your thoughts and we’ll regroup shortly.

Joyce Chen: Okay, I don’t want to interrupt the conversation which is going really, really well, but we might regroup on this question now. Hear what people have to say. Hear what their top three ideas are. We might first turn to Joyce’s table since we’ll go in the reverse order than the last question. So Joyce, top three for this group. We might just regroup and hear from this first group here. So Joyce, go ahead. Thanks Will. So I think we had a lot of ideas. I think our top three was one, how to make WSIS more connected between the policy level and layer and on-ground realities. So making that connection. We had one idea which was train the trainers program, capacity building, which brought us to the second point which is that there should be more capacity building at the grassroots level. The third one was to have much better public outreach and communications. We had some very good, sort of very encouraging feedback on the WSIS website. That’s a, you know, yes, very constructive feedback on that, that the i2 WSIS team have agreed to take away and improve next year. And then we, so these are the top three, but some other points that I think are worth just also bringing up was that, of course, continued support for the SDGs. Unfortunately, we know that that’s not a very good term these days, so how to still speak about the SDGs, but in a more nuanced way. We also talked about, you know, what is the model of development that we’re talking about? When you have development goals, but first of all, you have to first unpack what is development. Who is it for? Should it be people-centered or policy-driven, etc., etc.? So those were some of the sub points that we also discussed.

William Lee: Yeah, great. Wow. This table’s been really hard at work and on fire. I’m really loving this kind of policy versus on ground kind of concept. And obviously, you know, the capacity building piece is really, really important as well. And I think that’s kind of come through in a number of interventions so far. And I feel sorry for our ITU colleagues who have got constructive feedback. But I think no doubt every year we improve the WSIS Forum. So I think that sounds really good. I’m going to hand over to this table now. Isabel, what have you got for us?

Isabelle Lois: Many things. Many, many things. No, so we had very, very rich conversations on this question. I think it’s a great question. Maybe I can start with sort of a first answer that’s an overarching, I think, answer to the question, which is if we continue to really implement and work on the action lines, then we will be able to achieve at least part of the global development goals. So I think that’s sort of the main message. But then we went off. of course, into many more details, but I think that’s a core idea. So one of the things that we have to keep in mind when trying to implement the WSIS action lines is new ideas or new risks. I mean, the pace and the rhythm that AI is entering our world, it is changing how the action lines can be implemented, how they affect different communities. So I think that’s one of the points. Maybe that would go into trying to regulate or have a safer use of AI. Another point is sort of how can we make sure that the digital divides are not growing even larger, but working on reducing them and keeping that in mind as one of the central points. We also had some discussions on environment and climate with the fact that, yes, this is also one of the WSIS goals, but we could do more work. And throughout the entire implementation of the WSIS action lines and commitments, we should think also about the environmental aspect. We talked about monitoring or being able to sort of evaluate how we’re advancing on these goals to see what have we done, what changes do we need to make, has what we have done so far been useful or not, and have a stronger link with the SDGs. I think that’s one of the questions we raise a bit around the table on the SDGs go in one direction and how WSIS goals were created or placed before. How could we have a better integration between both? So there is a mapping, but there’s not really a thought of a joint implementation. So this is maybe something we could think about. And then we had a few great points focusing also on thinking about the local communities that are actually affected by the work we’re doing. So one part would be learning from what is happening in the different countries, maybe having a transparent reporting on what is happening in one country and that being able to be shared with the others. And also in that reporting, not only consulting the authorities or the governments from the country, but actually the affected communities and bring that perspective into our discussions. And then we questioned a bit, is it enough for us to sit around the table and talk about those who are concerned or should we include them into the conversation? And the answer is yes, we should include them into the conversation and not just talk about them. So I think that was one of the main points. We also talked very briefly on the distinctions or the difficulty of being able to talk about connectivity or internet access or the digital questions when some don’t even have access to electricity because if there’s no access to the bases, then we can’t even work on the rest. So I think we have to remember to start at the bottom and assure that and then we can continue to evolve. I hope I have summarized the points well enough, but it was a very interesting conversation.

William Lee: Great. Thank you. Some really interesting points there as well, the challenge of new technology. I think it’s been a common theme so far. Environment being a new thing that I think we’ve heard so far today, but I think really obviously really, really important as well as technology evolves. I hate to see the power bill from that AI for Good conference, I think, all those robots. Monitoring and evaluation really important as well, links to the sustainable development goals, and I like the point about getting the basics right and how we can use digital to help close those gaps. Jimson, what’s your table come up with?

Jimson Olufuye: I’d like to spread my legs. I have to exercise. All right. Thank you, Willem. Yes, three key points on how WSIS can continue to help with the global development goals. So number one is that we have a matrix already, a very good mapping, WSIS to SDG, WSIS action lines and targets to SDG. We need to use this framework very well, and in fact, maybe there should be some form of note on it, a recommendation that there should be reference to it. But the question is, where will it be achieved? Because you cannot just have a mapping. Yes, you have a mapping, but where would the actual implementation take place? So we all agree at the national level, at the sub-national level, local level, communities level. And that takes us to response number two, and that IGF as a forum where stakeholders come together to do note-taking reports and exchange ideas, should be strengthened along with these NRIs, the national regional IGFs, and let them move to sub-national IGFs, maybe at the state of performance. level, at the local level, at even small community level, okay? So you need to be nosedive to that level so that we can have results-oriented processes. Because we are talking here in Geneva, so will it end here? So if you want results, it must be at that local level. Then number three, we recognize that our development organization like ITU, they’re doing a lot of work, truly doing a lot of work. UNESCO, UNDP, UNIDO, UNECA, they’re doing a lot of work. So we want them to strengthen their engagement, okay, their effort, okay, involving all stakeholders. Actually, personally, I was impressed with Dr. Gelasi the other day, who was talking about how they achieved the UNESCO latest policy documentation, where all stakeholders, big things were out there, and everybody was happy at the end. So something like that needs to continue to happen, bringing all stakeholders towards the achievement of the sustainable development goal.

William Lee: Thank you very much. Great, thank you. Some really important, powerful points. I really liked the idea of local implementation, local action, strengthening the UN system, strengthening the engagement with stakeholders, really, really important as well. And how we actually turn kind of ideas into actions, both through WSIS and the SDG process, I think really, really, really powerful, and ties in well with the points that the other tables have made as well. As customary, I will now come to my table. And I think, as per the last question, a lot of the points that we talked about also came up on our table. Our first point was around buy-in. WSIS has a lot of buy-in and political will, a lot of visibility, and I think we’ve had about 60 ministers or something around here today. So how do we leverage that? How do we leverage this open door with everyone and take that forward into supporting other development objectives? Like some of the other groups talked about, we talked about measurable impact. How do we turn words into action? How do we create those practical opportunities? And that using the WSIS framework is a really important way of doing that. And then finally, how do we use WSIS as a platform to break down barriers? How do we use people’s interest in digital technology to translate that into practical development solutions? And I think that ties in really well with the points here around how do we get the basics right and use digital as a way of connecting people basic needs into digital needs. Cool, let’s move to the third question. Third question, how can the WSIS implementation mechanisms like UNGASS, which is a body of all the different UN agencies involved in WSIS, WSIS Stock Taking, that’s the 15,000 projects that the ITU has been handing out certificates for this week if you’ve been to one of the prize ceremonies, the WSIS Forum, that’s where we are today, the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum, which met a couple of weeks ago in Oslo. And if you haven’t called past the IGF booth, I would encourage you to do so. Partnership or measuring ICT for development be strengthened. So in effect, this question is asking how do we take the implementation mechanisms that we have in WSIS and make them stronger? Perhaps let’s have another sort of seven to 10 minute chat about this question. Maybe let’s stick. with this theme of top three. I think this is kind of working pretty well for us. So let’s stay there. Let’s see where we get to, and we’ll regroup in about seven or 10 minutes, see where we are, and then we’ll regroup about the whole conversation from today, which has been excellent so far. Cool, let’s start the conversation.

Audience: Oh, thank you. Yeah, just curious to know how many UN agencies are involved in WSIS, and UNGIS, it stands for what? I can answer the second. Yeah. Sure, I can try and answer, and maybe other colleagues who know more can also put up their hands. But UNGIS is the United Nations Group on the Information Society. So in 2005, part of the Tunis Agenda, everyone agreed that this body would be created. It’s a fairly informal body. It brings together all of the UN agencies responsible for the WSIS, so the action line leads, the co-facilitators of the action lines, and now I believe a whole bunch of other agencies that are just interested in supporting the objectives of the WSIS. I want to say 50 UN agencies, I’m looking, 30, 30, 39, there we go, we got the right number. 39 UN agencies involved in UNGIS. So basically, for the purposes of the question, how do we strengthen, this is kind of the coordinating mechanism. So how do we strengthen coordination among all the UN agencies? Through this body or other parts of the system as well. Great, no, no worries. I look forward to some really exciting answers ahead. Let’s go. So when we talk about measuring IPC with development teams, we need to use data in order to measure what it is that we’re achieving. How do we measure accomplishing whatever goals we set for a given day? Is it a number of classes you need to hold? Is it grades to hold your classes? How long are those classes? Or is it the skill that people have developed as a result of going through this? I don’t think that’s the gist of the question. Sorry to interrupt. But isn’t it more about the UN system and how people can work better together? But part of that is also asking the question of how are we measuring our success in what way? I think the point is that it’s a long time to make. If we can’t measure what the message is that all these processes have, how do we know what’s strengthened? How do we know what’s weakened? So I think part of the problem is the measurement problem. More because we’re all talking about the policy impact on both projects and development. So if you don’t have high-level commerce to that effect, you still have to be able to measure. Okay. So isn’t the answer then clear-cut the eyes for each process? Like where do WSIS want to be? Where does the GDC want to be in five or ten years’ time? So yet there needs to be regular assessment and review processes, right? There are some measurements, for example, that are existing but may not be on the east map. They’re actually on the south side. So, for example, GSA may not have internet penetration or mobile penetration. How robust that information is, I’m not sure the data accurately says that. The ITU also has a lot of indexes, which may or may not be used. But I know governments reference the ITU indexes a lot. So, for example, they have to audit us on, I can’t remember the exact date, but it has to do with resilience. Measuring the digital resilience is important. There is something that’s like that. So I think the broader problem is that all these mechanisms don’t know how to communicate the outcomes of their work very well. I think there is a lot of overlap and I think there is a working in silence. So everybody does their own thing. And it is a little bit of protectionism of each agency. They’re funded by donors and they have to show that they are doing more than everybody else. So there’s more competition and collaboration, like industry in a way. So they’re fighting for survival. I mean, when you think about 40 agencies involved, my God. Can you imagine 40 agencies talking to each other in a meaningful way? You know, I asked that question a few months ago. I mean, I think it’s wonderful. I think, you know, the whole process to really fundamentally decide to make the right work is the right work that we want to do. And I’m hearing voices in my environment. And I think it should be everybody. That’s me, as opposed to everybody else. But I don’t know if there’s a standard agreement on that. You know, perhaps the question on how we can strengthen WSIS implementation also ties in with UN reform as such. Like you can’t really separate one from the other. It’s really, it’s above my pay grade, right? But there are discussions that perhaps… There are discussions being had about merging, for example, IOM, International Organization of Migration, and UNHCR, humanitarian stuff. So there’s a lot of things, working with refugees or something. So there is a case bill to be made for the cuts to merge or similar mandates. I mean, they probably would not be happy with that. They are doing that. Yes. Right now, for IOM and UNHCR, they are drafting the report on in-state conflict zones together. We share the insight that we had previously working for UNHCR. So as a start, we can receive the information from both IOM, UNHCR, and all the UNRWA staff who are offering every morning and every few hours if there’s an emergency. So right now, we are sharing the information and we try to align our messages, but it’s still… My point being that there probably is similar people doing a similar job in the two organizations. So sharing is not enough. Yes. And you need to get a part of them and give that work to one group of people. We don’t need two sets of people doing the same thing. It’s great. And also, I wanted to pick up on that point about the idea of sustainability. I think the sustainability of the mechanisms themselves in an environment where there is… greatly reduce funding, especially to fund them from, you know, country to country contributions. And our friend America putting out everything. But we don’t talk about it. We don’t talk about it very much. I know, specific to the IGF, the internet government, again, if you have not yet, that familiar with that, go and look back at the recording. So we have talked a lot about the IGF in terms of how we could strengthen accessibility. Like the WSIS Forum that we’re in now, it is actually about free enrollment. And it’s kind of always at the brink of collapse. But the community bands together to make sure it’s always happy. So there is talk about, for example, the government benefits of the IGF and the outcome of the WSIS Forum. And the community is also now discussing, well, what do we mean when we say 100 million ratings? How will it affect the funding? How will it affect the bottom-up agenda setting nature of the IGF, et cetera? And so, I would imagine that we would have very similar questions. Obamacare, for example, it is a body of coordination amongst the UN agencies. But if all the UN agencies are getting funding cut, then is there going to be much time dedicated then to work on Obamacare, et cetera, et cetera, right? There’s a sustainability problem that the UN is facing. We’re not going to have an effect on all these things from what’s going on at the top. So the UN is celebrating 80 years next year. But this celebration is really a cost-cutting exercise. So we’re now, yeah, so it’s two ways of looking at it. But yeah, so they’re using it as a way to inform, because we have a lot of criticism for the way it functions, the purpose, blah, blah, blah, a lot of overlap. But yeah, sustainability is key. I mean, how many of these agencies can do something? And even you’re turning a lot to even donors. You’re getting donor fatigue. And even the people on the street where you’re rattling tins and getting, you know, all the time, you know, this, this, and this. Even, you know, I find I’m getting annoyed with it because they can’t get it from above. They’re coming down now to you. So you’re getting taxed all the time. It’s a ripple effect for levels, and it’s going to affect everything. So it’ll be interesting to what happens with these reforms. That will be key to a lot of things. I think when we talk about, at least as an organizational organization, I think we always, when we start talking about reforms and changes, we then also have to talk about agility. So agility to me is code word for, we have that budget that we need to do more. How can we do better? How can we do better? Being agile, nimble, being able to adapt. Use AI. Oh! Oh! Maybe you’ll disappear from the table. Yeah. You’ll be replaced by bots. Exactly. I’ll just go to the toilet real quick. Okay. Yeah, it’s just having that ripple effect. Yeah. And maybe more horizontal structure. Because a lot of UN works fall down. You tell the person under you. You tell the person under you. They don’t talk. So. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So. So. Yeah. Information sharing is important. Avoiding duplication. Streamlining. A lot of them do work on similar things. Somehow bringing, coordinating, building coherent thread that brings different inputs together. I mean, the US has done it a lot. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the UN does it as reverse of the work of civil society. UN doesn’t want to deal with a houndred thousand NGOs. It wants you to form a coalition, fight it out amongst yourself, organise your thoughts, and just give us one more. That’s what they want. So in some ways, we’re asking for the same the other way around. That someone how to bring all that together, coalesce, filter it all through, distill it, and come up with the key nuggets we really need. I mean, I’m being really critical in a way. There are so many assistant director generals in the UN system. And I have no idea what most of them do, who they are, what they do. And there are more assistant director generals than there are departments. I mean, who are they? There’s a whole questionnaire structure, which has worked nicely when they give lots of money. I think a lot of them are now gone. So there’s a lot of different issues. And I’ll pick up your point on rewriting. Because I think the UN, as a system, suffers from the weight of its predecessor, because it doesn’t like to let things go. Like when a process has been started, then there are new processes being started, but they won’t contact the ones that you have updated or anything like that. And so the UN is kind of burgeoning from… Constantly making new processes. But not actually making more reductions. This whole AI stream that’s just flourished in the last five years, it wasn’t like that before? But why whoever did that didn’t think, well, the YCIS architecture has been working for 20 years, so let’s build on that, let’s expand that, let’s think, why do we have to go in different streams? And I wasn’t involved in the 20 years. I’ve only just discovered YCIS by accident, as I said to you, because I was coming for the AI summit. And I just happened to… At the same time, oh, I wonder what this is. But I see now, from my point of view, it’s really, really important. And we have not been part of it, because we don’t know about it. Relating to what you mentioned, is there not a different kind of discourse that you want to work on? I mean, from the IT unit, you could say it’s working, but I don’t think it’s working.

William Lee: now on this final on this final question. I’ve heard lots of good points, lots of good conversation. Perhaps we look to kick off now and then we can maybe finish a few minutes early today so that everyone can get on with their afternoons. But I might turn to to Isabel and and this table here to hear thoughts

Isabelle Lois: on question three. Many thoughts. No, so we discussed a bit. First we discussed what is WSIS implementation and all of these mechanisms. I think maybe I will add something that we didn’t discuss but I find that it’s a context that maybe will be useful for also the summaries of the other tables. I think in the WSIS sort of architecture there’s part of it that’s implementing the action lines and the commitments we’ve made and then we also have the review process. So I think these different sort of initiatives and mechanisms that are here on the question are looking at the sort of day-to-day implementation. Who’s doing what? Where are we working? How are we highlighting what is being done? But then we also have the implementation part where it’s reviewing how these processes are actually delivering on their work and this is one of the questions that came up time and time again in in our discussions is we’re trying to implement WSIS in the best way but we have to make sure that the mechanisms that we’re using are efficient and for that we have the CSTD which is one of the spaces where we can review how is implementation going? Is it going in the right direction or not? And I think it might it is a part of the WSIS family that is not used well enough and this is my opinion. This was not discussed but I just wanted to add that as one of the sort of points that we can we can think of. And now with the WSIS 2020 review we can look at the whole system. So what we discussed more importantly in the group was looking at how these different mechanisms are working together or not, how much of the work being done in UNGIS or the WSIS stock taking are like fitting into each other, how much are we using the IGF for example and the WSIS forum in the best way, how much are we complementing the works done in one part of the system and the other, and that there is there absolutely room for improvement and there should be more of a performance review of these different mechanisms to maybe question how they’re working, re-looking at the structure etc. One of the points we raised is on UNGIS and maybe updating UNGIS to fit with sort of the new realities, having a strong role for some of the partners that may be part of UNGIS but in a observer status or that are not part of it at all and maybe should be included. I’m also looking at the other points, we once again went back to our point of inclusion which is one of the messages I’ve sort of come up with on the three questions of making sure that even in the implementation mechanisms that we have, that we’re also including the target sort of communities and the targets of who are we doing all of this work for and how are we making sure that within UNGIS or within the stock taking or the WSIS forum, the people at the table, the people who are speaking are the affected communities that we are trying to deliver these goals for or these principles for. And so this was one of the questions that was also raised in when we are looking at the performance sort of review of all these mechanisms, can we also look at who is being part of them and making sure that we are inclusive

William Lee: on that level as well. Great, I love that. I’m going to summarize that as build back better which I think is great, updating UNGIS, who’s part of it, inclusion. and using all of the elements of the WSIS family to get the outcomes that we’re looking for. Jimson, what do you got on for us?

Jimson Olufuye: All right. It’s been very thought provoking session. Lot of ideas. We first said plus one to our ideas, earlier ideas about need to focus the implementation at the national, the regional, sub-regional, sub-national, state, provisional, local, or community level. We need to push it, focus more to that end. Yes. Then number two, that there should be a quarterly engagement process for all these stakeholders listed. Quarterly, instead of annual. Because of the urgency of 2030 targets. Then we need to ensure that stronger visibility. This is connected to the earlier message in any way. The visibility here needs to be possibly documented so that it can, government, especially from developing countries, can see it in the document and say, oh, this is part of our responsibility. And we stakeholder as well, it will empower us to be able to say, okay, government see paragraph, something that said we should need to be doing this thing more regularly. And then there is need to establish liaison from each of these mechanism, liaison, so that without liaison, there can be a focal group of all the liaisons. Okay, maybe IGF, for example, we have a head like Chengetai, who always be at Hungi’s meeting, or maybe he’s a representative, or be at Wisi’s, vice versa. When IGF-2 Mark is meeting, we must have somebody for measurement of social partnership in liaison, in what they are meeting. And then these liaisons can also be constituted as say, some of our committee or something to exchange notes, and then take back again to their constituencies. So as well, that’s way to strengthen the process. Then also, that’s lastly now, when it comes to measuring, because if you cannot measure something, you cannot manage it according to management principle. You need to be able to measure properly. And I got the feedback yesterday, because there was a meeting of the measurement group and I was seeing that, wow, there wasn’t really a lot of measurement going on, really sound measurement in terms of, say, this relate to this, that relate to this. And there was a challenge on how to go about many things. I was just looking at it. Look, you can get top-level consultants. Let them budget, get top-level consultants. So that’s what we are recommending, that in terms of measuring on specific areas, get consultants, top-level consultants to work on this thing, instead of the agency themselves trying to do it themselves. So though the agency can do it, they can serve as a review. They can actually review, again, what they’ve done. But let top consultant be engaged as part of the partnership in the process. Thank you.

William Lee: Right, really good point there as well. The quality of engagement, documenting things, being transparent about what’s going on, having liaison offices and encouraging a two-way street. And I really liked the point about making sure we have the right experts offering the right solutions. Joyce, what do you have for us?

Joyce Chen: Yes, so we talked about how the different mechanisms could measure data and success indicators a lot better. And basically trying to understand how the different agencies are meeting their targets and how we could improve the way that successes are being communicated. Because a lot of the time, there’s so much work being done that all these thousands of projects that are happening, but then once we get to the end of the exercise, we don’t communicate back. What those outcomes were. So we had a bit of discussion around that. We also talked about how. So, a lot of the UN agencies are working in silos and, you know, there is, there tends to be protectionism within the agencies itself. And so, we wanted to see more collaboration instead of competition between the agencies and as well more horizontal structures, such as the UNGASS, I think, is a good example of that. And we spent a lot of time talking about UN reform because of the current environment, you know, budgets are being cut, there is a lot of, there is reduced funding from voluntary contributions and how that has really hurt the system in a way, but at the same time, it is an opportunity because the UN can now be more creative, it can be more agile, it can think about how to be more fit for purpose and streamline its work, as opposed to trying to do everything for everyone. And so, we spent a lot of time talking about sustainability and, you know, especially as funding is drying up, and the need to build human resources. So, we have friends from the ITU with this team here. We would hate to see them being replaced by AI, for example, or by an algorithm. And so, the UN really needs to invest in building its human resources. And so, basically, just all these things in summary is how the UN and its different mechanisms can coalesce all these different efforts and amalgamate. And then finally, why not just use the WSIS architecture, the existing one, for new work streams like AI that has come to the fore in recent years, instead of having a proliferation of work streams and then having this reluctance to reduce the ones that are outdated or no longer relevant. So, yeah. Great.

William Lee: Another really good set of examples, talking about the issues of silos. I really like collaboration, not competition, as kind of a concept. Sustainability, really important, and reusing what we have and making it work better, which I think ties in really nicely with some of the points the other groups have made. Just briefly for this table, we talked again about reusing projects. We focused just a little bit on the stock-taking database, not wanting to reinvent the wheel, but actually using the projects in that and connecting people to areas where there are projects and there are success stories. Why AI for Good and the WSIS Forum are together, we kind of mused about that a little bit, and that there needs to be kind of a strategic partnership or a strategic vision to take that forward. We must strengthen outreach to other groups that aren’t part of the WSIS, and we talked about the fact that perhaps a little bit of anarchy is not a bad thing. We don’t need to kind of structure everything, and perhaps ideas do come from places that are perhaps unexpected, but that we need to capture all of that energy and enthusiasm. And then finally around kind of the challenge of new technologies. In our case, we talked a little bit about quantum, but I think that could apply to a range of technologies, how we bring in new players, new relationships, new areas of interest and focus. So that has been a marathon, nearly two hours of great conversation. So first of all, a round of applause to everyone who has joined us today. I’m not gonna try and attempt to summarize that really extensive conversation. My notes look like I’ve been at the doctor’s office, but it has been really, really good, and I know our colleagues from the ITU have been capturing all of these thoughts and essences, which has been really good. I would encourage. you all to take all of these great ideas and conversations out into that wider WSIS world, to participate in the review process this year, to share these ideas and other ideas you might have had to the review process as well. We have on the screen, if you want to share further thoughts, please do send an email to our ITU colleagues. I wanna thank our three table moderators, Joyce, Isabel and Jimson, and obviously wanna thank our ITU hosts as well. I’ll hand over the floor to you in case there’s any closing remarks you wanna make, but thank you very much, everyone.

Participant: So it was wonderful, it was a wonderful experience. We had these knowledge cafes for five days for the entire school. Hello, yeah. Okay, so I would like to thank all of you, and it was a wonderful experience here. We had these knowledge cafes for the entire week, and we had great inputs from all the participants, and if you can, you can send us your inputs, whatever you collected from here to these mail IDs. Otherwise, if you have written it on a paper, you can submit it to me, I’ll collect it, and yeah, it was great. It was fun having all of you here, and thank you, see you next year, and see you around.

Jennifer Chung: We welcome all of you to join us at the closing at four in room C, and thank you so much for supporting VERSUS. We are still gonna be working harder and harder next year, and yeah, we will bring more digital collaboration to all of us, thank you.

William Lee: Thanks very much. A couple of housekeeping on the way out. you could grab one of the boxes and put them at the back. That will just help our colleagues a lot. And for the moderators, if you wanna come up and let’s get a bit of a happy snap from the session, that would be great, along with our ITU colleagues. I don’t know. I’m just gonna change it. Excellent. Okay, thank you. Ooh. Yay! It’s my own smile, and that kept me calm. I think, hey, there’s my name, I did it again. Uh-huh. I did it again. Ah. Okay. So that was just my question. There’s a lot of questions in the Q&A. There’s a whole lot of questions. I know. Okay. I’m with both the state employee and the municipal employee. Making it work. I can speak. So I, like, you know, thank you all for coming and this all has been great things. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so thank you. And thank you. Right. Thank you, but they emerged out. Oh, is thatamento, that’s right. That’s it, thank you. All right, thank you. Excuse me, yeah. Excuse me. We’re gonna have a final call. Please stand by. All right, one final photo. One final group photo. All right, let’s look at, please look at the official photographer, she for this session. Oh, yeah, please. Maybe if we turn it off, it’s better. All right. So, thank you.