Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process and how to strengthen the digital governance architecture beyond 2025. The panel, moderated by Isabelle Lois from the Swiss Federal Office of Communications, brought together diverse stakeholders to discuss a Swiss non-paper proposing improvements to the WSIS framework. The participants agreed that existing WSIS action lines remain flexible and comprehensive enough to address current digital challenges, but require updates to their implementation architecture rather than complete restructuring.

Key themes emerged around meaningful connectivity, artificial intelligence governance, data sovereignty, and the need for better coordination between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact (GDC) to avoid duplication. Panelists emphasized the critical importance of including Global South perspectives and ensuring equitable participation in digital governance processes. The discussion highlighted significant concerns about the absence of adequate public financing for WSIS implementation and the need for better metrics to measure progress on digital inclusion and equity.

Regarding the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), there was strong consensus on making it permanent with sustainable funding while expanding its role beyond internet governance to encompass broader digital policy issues. Participants debated whether to rebrand the IGF to reflect its evolved scope, though some argued the current name remains relevant as digital technologies are fundamentally internet-dependent. The conversation addressed architectural gaps in the current system and proposed better institutional linkages between the IGF, Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly.

The panel concluded with optimism about achieving a “fair deal for all” through the WSIS Plus 20 review, emphasizing the need for inclusive participation and meaningful stakeholder engagement in shaping the digital future.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS Plus 20 Review and Architecture Updates**: The panel discussed how to modernize the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) framework for post-2025, focusing on updating existing action lines rather than creating new ones, and addressing emerging issues like AI, data governance, and meaningful connectivity while maintaining the flexible, technology-agnostic approach.

– **IGF Evolution and Institutionalization**: Significant attention was given to strengthening the Internet Governance Forum’s role, including making it permanent with sustainable funding, expanding its mandate beyond just internet governance to cover broader digital governance issues, and improving its connection to decision-making processes through better institutional linkages.

– **Multi-stakeholder Inclusion and Global South Participation**: Panelists emphasized the critical need for meaningful inclusion of all stakeholders, particularly voices from the Global South, developing countries, and marginalized communities, while addressing gaps in participation and ensuring that diverse perspectives shape digital governance policies.

– **Coordination Between Digital Governance Processes**: The discussion focused on avoiding duplication and creating synergies between various UN processes, particularly WSIS and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), through joint implementation roadmaps and better coordination mechanisms between IGF, CSTD, WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly.

– **Human Rights and Public Interest in Digital Governance**: Panelists stressed the importance of strengthening human rights language across the WSIS architecture, ensuring democratic ownership of digital public infrastructure, addressing issues like misinformation and hate speech, and prioritizing public interest over private interests in agenda-setting processes.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to gather multi-stakeholder input on how to strengthen and modernize the WSIS framework for the post-2025 period, with particular focus on making the architecture more inclusive, effective, and relevant to current digital governance challenges while avoiding duplication with other UN processes.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout. Panelists were generally supportive of Switzerland’s non-paper and showed enthusiasm for finding positive solutions. The conversation was professional and solution-oriented, with participants building on each other’s ideas rather than engaging in conflict. The tone remained optimistic and forward-looking, with speakers expressing hope for achieving meaningful outcomes by the December 2025 deadline, despite acknowledging the challenging geopolitical environment and time constraints.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jorge Cancio** – Co-director of international relations at the Swiss Federal Office of Communications

– **Min Jiang** – Works at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (participating online)

– **Oktavian Šofranski** – Works with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg

– **Anita Gurumurthy** – Executive director for IT4Change

– **Participant** – Multiple unidentified participants (roles/titles not specified)

– **Flavio Vagner** – Professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil and technical consultant for CGI Brazil

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members (roles/titles not specified)

– **Anna Osserling** – From Article 19, an international human rights organization focusing on free speech

– **Juan Fernandez** – Senior advisor at the Ministry of Communications for the government of Cuba

– **Bertrand de la Chapelle** – Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network

– **Isabelle Lois** – Senior policy advisor at the Swiss Federal Office of Communications and vice chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) – served as moderator

– **Jacques Becklinger** – Speaking in support of the European IGF EuroDIG and president of the Swiss IGF Supporting Association

– **Maria Fernanda Garza** – Honorary chair of the International Chamber of Commerce and member of the Leadership Panel

**Additional speakers:**

– **Luisa Lendi** – Junior policy advisor at the Swiss Federal Office of Communication and online moderator

– **Eugenio V. Garcia** – Director of science, technology, innovation and intellectual property at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil

– **Olaf Kolfmann** – Works for Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy at ISOC

– **Kosi** – From the Ministry of Economy and Finance of Benin, also chair of an NGO called Women Be Free

– **Bruna** – Part of a civil society organization (full name and title not provided)

– **Mark Colwell** – Participated online (mentioned by Luisa reading his comment)

# WSIS Plus 20 Review and Digital Governance Architecture Discussion

## Executive Summary

This multi-stakeholder discussion, moderated by Isabelle Lois from the Swiss Federal Office of Communications, examined the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process and approaches to strengthening digital governance architecture beyond 2025. The session brought together representatives from government, civil society, academia, international organisations, and the private sector to discuss a Swiss non-paper proposing improvements to the WSIS framework.

The conversation focused on practical approaches to updating the WSIS framework while maintaining its foundational principles. Participants generally agreed that existing WSIS action lines remain flexible enough to address contemporary digital challenges, with emphasis needed on improving implementation architecture and coordination mechanisms rather than wholesale restructuring. Key themes included strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), addressing participation gaps particularly for Global South countries, and better coordinating between various digital governance processes including the Global Digital Compact (GDC).

## Key Discussion Points

### WSIS Framework Evolution and Action Lines

Several speakers emphasized that the existing WSIS action lines provide sufficient flexibility for addressing contemporary challenges. Anita Gurumurthy from IT4Change stated: “We completely agree that the existing action lines in WSIS Tunis are flexible enough to encompass new challenges. And rather than introducing new action lines or deleting existing ones, updates should be made to the current implementation architecture.”

Flavio Vagner from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul reinforced this view, noting that “WSIS action lines are comprehensive and technology-agnostic, maintaining validity after 20 years but need emphasis on emerging issues.” He highlighted how artificial intelligence impacts multiple action lines as both an enabler and potential threat.

Maria Fernanda Garza from the International Chamber of Commerce provided a helpful framing: “The WSIS architecture provides a unique and inclusive distributed governance model… The most important question we need to ask ourselves is whether we have been using it effectively… we have a toolbox, but are we really using all of the tools?”

### Internet Governance Forum Development

The discussion revealed support for strengthening and institutionalizing the IGF after two decades of operation. Min Jiang from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, participating online, identified a key structural challenge: “IGF by mandate is a non-binding, deliberative structure… Unfortunately also, limited by its design, a lot of the great IGF discussions and outcomes do not necessarily land in decision-making fora.”

Juan Fernandez from Cuba’s Ministry of Communications provided context by quoting Vint Cerf: “IGF may not be the place to solve the problem, but it’s certainly the place to frame the problem.” He presented data showing participation gaps in AI governance processes, with a chart demonstrating that many countries, particularly from the Global South, cannot participate in multiple governance forums simultaneously.

Bertrand de la Chapelle from the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network suggested that “2026, with an impetus coming from the WSIS plus 20 review, should be about what is and should be the evolution and the revision of the mandate of the IGF to make it formally what it is supposed to be.”

### Addressing Participation Gaps and Inclusion

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of meaningful participation from underrepresented groups. Fernandez’s presentation visually demonstrated how “most of the countries, and mostly of the South, cannot participate in all of them, or even in some of them,” referring to various digital governance processes.

Eugenio V. Garcia highlighted Brazil’s approach to inclusion, referencing their preparations for COP30 and the principle of “nothing about us without us.” He noted the challenging political environment while expressing optimism about the window of opportunity for progress.

Anna Osserling from Article 19 stressed the “importance of including underserved communities globally and addressing participation gaps,” while acknowledging that digital technologies can facilitate engagement through online environments and remote participation.

### Coordination Between Digital Governance Processes

Participants discussed the need for better coordination between WSIS Plus 20, the Global Digital Compact, and IGF processes. Gurumurthy advocated for “better linking needed between WSIS and GDC review tracks with IGF’s annual review process.”

Fernandez proposed institutional linkages between IGF, the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly to avoid duplication, emphasizing that “CSTD provides necessary intergovernmental space for government concerns and decision-making.”

Jacques Becklinger highlighted the role of National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) as “ground operations” that need better integration into global processes.

## Stakeholder Perspectives

### Government Representatives

Government speakers emphasized the need for intergovernmental spaces while supporting multi-stakeholder approaches. Fernandez stressed the importance of the CSTD as a space for government decision-making, while Garcia highlighted the challenging political environment and the need for inclusive approaches.

### Civil Society Organizations

Civil society representatives focused on human rights protections and meaningful inclusion. Gurumurthy raised concerns about public financing gaps, while Osserling emphasized strengthening human rights language across the WSIS architecture.

### Academic Contributions

Academic participants provided analytical frameworks for understanding governance challenges. Jiang identified structural issues with translating IGF outcomes into decision-making, while Vagner emphasized the technology-agnostic nature of existing action lines.

### Private Sector Engagement

Garza emphasized the private sector’s readiness to contribute, noting that the “ICC ready to serve as bridge between businesses worldwide and UN implementation efforts” while stressing the importance of commercially viable and technically feasible policies.

### International Organizations

Representatives highlighted coordination challenges and opportunities. De la Chapelle focused on institutional evolution, while other speakers emphasized the need for better integration between existing mechanisms.

## Audience Participation and Additional Perspectives

The session included active audience participation with several important contributions:

– A representative from Benin questioned whether the IGF name should change to reflect its broader digital governance scope, arguing that “IGF now discusses many digital issues beyond just internet governance.”

– Questions were raised about business community engagement in global digital governance architecture.

– Participants discussed the balance between multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches in different contexts.

## Practical Recommendations and Next Steps

Several concrete suggestions emerged from the discussion:

### Immediate Actions

– Provide feedback on the Swiss non-paper to support co-facilitators’ negotiations

– Develop structured follow-up mechanisms for IGF recommendations

– Create better integration between IGF and WSIS Forum processes

### Medium-term Developments

– Work toward making the IGF permanent with sustainable funding

– Develop joint implementation roadmaps between WSIS Plus 20 and GDC processes

– Strengthen participation mechanisms for Global South countries

### Long-term Vision

– Consider formal IGF mandate revision in 2026 based on 20 years of experience

– Develop better coordination mechanisms between various UN digital governance processes

– Address financing gaps that limit implementation effectiveness

## Timeline and Process Considerations

The discussion referenced several important upcoming milestones:

– Feedback period for the elements paper from co-facilitators

– Zero draft expected in August

– December timeline for key decisions

– Related processes including the WSIS Forum in Geneva and AI for Good summit

## Areas Requiring Further Development

While the discussion was generally collaborative, several issues require continued attention:

### Coordination Mechanisms

Participants agreed on the need for better coordination but proposed different specific approaches. The exact mechanisms for integrating WSIS Plus 20 and GDC processes need further development.

### IGF Evolution

While there was support for strengthening the IGF, questions remain about specific changes to its mandate, funding mechanisms, and relationship to other processes.

### Participation and Inclusion

Despite consensus on the importance of Global South participation, concrete mechanisms for addressing participation gaps require further elaboration.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated the potential for constructive multi-stakeholder dialogue on digital governance issues. Participants showed general agreement on maintaining the flexibility of existing WSIS action lines while improving implementation and coordination mechanisms. The emphasis on addressing participation gaps and ensuring meaningful inclusion of all stakeholders, particularly from the Global South, emerged as a central priority.

The session’s collaborative tone and focus on practical solutions suggest positive prospects for the WSIS Plus 20 review process. While challenges remain around coordination mechanisms and implementation details, the discussion provided a solid foundation for continued engagement toward achieving more effective and inclusive digital governance architecture beyond 2025.

The moderator’s closing emphasis on ensuring “nobody is left behind in digital age with a fair deal for all stakeholders” captured the inclusive vision driving the review process and the commitment of participants to work toward meaningful outcomes despite challenging global circumstances.

Isabelle Lois: Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for attending and participating in this open forum. My name is Isabelle Lois, I’m a senior policy advisor at the Swiss Federal Office of Communications and I’m also vice chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development or the CSTD. We have, I think, a very interesting open forum for you today called Building Bridges for WSIS+, a multi-stakeholder dialogue. As you can see, we have a great panel here. Let me introduce maybe the panelists a bit. So on my right, we have Anita Gurumurthy, who is executive director for IT4Change. And then we have Flavio Reichtwagner, who is professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil and also technical consultant for CGI Brazil. And then further on the right, we have Eugenio V. Garcia, who is director of science, technology, innovation and intellectual property at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil. And then on my left side, we have first Luisa Lendi, who’s a junior policy advisor at the Swiss Federal Office of Communication and she’s our online moderator. And then we have Juan Fernandez, who’s a senior advisor at the Ministry of Communications for the government of Cuba. And we then have Maria Fernanda Garcia, who’s honorary chair of the International Chamber of Commerce. And last but not least, in person, we have Olaf Kolfmann, who’s working for the Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy at ISOC. And online, we have Min Jiang, who’s working at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. So that’s our great panel and maybe before we start the discussion and the conversation I would like to give the floor to Jorge Cancio who’s co-director of international relations at the Swiss Federal Office of Communications. Jorge please share some words.

Jorge Cancio: So thank you so much Isabel. Hello everyone my name is Jorge Cancio from the Swiss government also working together with Isabel, with Risa and also with our colleagues Thomas and Remy who are here on site at the IGF. I won’t be long you know many of you know we have a non-paper that is advocating for WSIS plus and WSIS framework that is both up to speed for the digital needs of today’s world in terms of substance and in terms of how the UN system works together both internally and with all the interested stakeholders. So we are offering this non-paper as food for thought for the community and we look forward to a very substantive discussion at today’s forum with all the excellent panelists. I think only the IGF can bring together such a diverse group with so many different sensitivities and we really are very happy to have you here. Thank you so much.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you Jorge and thank you for sharing a bit a few thoughts on our non-paper. If anyone wants to have a copy or anything we can always share them with you and if anyone also wants to sit on the on the podium on the panel please come up and sit here don’t be shy. I think we can jump in straight into our questions and discussions. We all know what we’re talking about this is not the first session that discusses WSIS and what we want out of it so I think we will jump right in. I’m gonna turn to you Anita if that’s all right and maybe ask if you could share some of your thoughts on what specific changes you consider necessary to make the entire WSIS architecture fit for purpose beyond 2025 and how would you implement those changes and what changes should we see? Maybe you could share a bit on that.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you very much. I first want to compliment the government of Switzerland for having come out with such a thoughtful paper, non-paper paper. And I really gained a lot out of reading it, and also looking at the original WSIS and GDC texts. What I want to say is that we completely agree that the existing action lines in WSIS Tunis are flexible enough to encompass new challenges. And rather than introducing new action lines or deleting existing ones, updates should be made to the current implementation architecture. I think that’s a great starting point. And in fact, I can hazard a few hypotheses on how action lines can actually be redefined. For instance, the first one on the role of public governance authorities and stakeholders could actually be updated to include common standards for digital public goods, and emphasize democratic ownership and control, and transparency and accountability of digital public infrastructure. Similarly, action line three on access to information and knowledge could really encompass the need to tackle the risks to democratic integrity, especially because of misinformation, hate speech, et cetera. The line, which is the fourth, which speaks about capacity building could actually look at transformative public digital education, what unfortunately goes by the name of digital literacy for algorithmified or algorithmized public life, and so on and so forth. You could actually think about different updations and we, from the Global Digital Justice Forum, have a list of this kind of updation. But what is critical, I think, is that the architectural gaps in the first place also arise. because of one Achilles heel, which is the absence of the significance in all these documents around public financing. I think we know that ODA commitments are not being really respected, and therefore WSIS-related financing is in trouble, and therefore there are architectural gaps, and blended financing is not enough. So I think this is something for SDG’s implementation related to the WSIS we really have to look at front and center. I also think that a couple more points that I’d like to make, which have resonances in the non-paper, are to do with better linking the review of WSIS and now the GDC tracks, and the IGF’s annual review track of WSIS and GDC. How will we imagine this is, I think, very important. What will be the identified metrics across WSIS action lines and GDC tracks? How do we hold our governments to account? How do we know what progress is? And how do we define progress from the point of view of inclusion, diversity, equity, etc.? And how can it be better synergized with annual reviews, where national reviews will be presented? So finally, I’d also like to say that it’s really, really important that in the business of standard setting and going forward, we’re talking about AI, we know that many of the action line holders in the WSIS are really busy with sophisticated and committed groups looking at standard setting, but unfortunately, in all of this, developing country civil society and developing country governments are really absent, and I think that that’s something we do need to pay attention to, otherwise, I think, going forward from here, we’re not going to really have a robust post-WSIS Plus 20 review process. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Anita. I think you raised a lot of very important and very specific points that I took well note of. I like how you both gave some ideas on specific action lines where we could do better and also thinking on how How are we calculating progress? How are we celebrating what we have done, what we have achieved, and making sure that that is well recorded? And I will now maybe turn to you, Flavio. Could you share what specific maybe subject matter updates to go further than just the architecture? Would you believe are essential to make now so that WSIS is truly impactful beyond 2025? How could they be, if needed, integrated into the entire framework?

Flavio Vagner: So thank you, Isabel. Thank you for having me in the session and for the question, yeah. But first of all, let me also, as Nit, also congratulate the government of Switzerland for the non-paper, which makes very relevant and timely recommendations for the WSIS plus 20 review process and for the future of the WSIS architecture and processes. So the WSIS action lines are already very comprehensive and they cover all aspects of the information society and today’s digital transformation. They have been written in a technology agnostic way. I heard this expression this morning and I found it very, very useful, yeah. Such that the action lines did not lose their validity and strength after 20 years. However, of course, issues that were emerging trends in 2005 or even in 2015 during the WSIS plus 10 review are now a tangible reality and should be emphasized in the WSIS plus 20 review and in the follow-up of the WSIS processes. So first of all, meaningful connectivity. This is still a major challenge. Billions remain still offline, particularly in least developed countries and marginalized communities. Many with internet access still face barriers such as affordability, low digital literacy, lack of relevant content and services, for instance, in their native languages. A second issue is the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence everyone is talking about. Its impact both positive and negative continues to expand affecting labor, ethics, the environment and still deserve careful assessment by the society. So the action lines must be revised as AI acts both as an enabler but also as a threat across many areas, many action lines. Data governance, which is closely tied to AI, we now live in a data economy. Many in the global south raise concerns, serious concerns about data colonialism, advocate for data sovereignty. This cannot be neglected and must be a key focus of the WSIS Plus 20 review process. Social media and digital platforms, barely emerging 20 years ago, are now ubiquitous. They empower communication, content creation, SMEs, but also fuel disinformation and hate speech. Information integrity has become a critical issue requiring balanced solutions that at the same time protect empowerment while combating harmful content. Human rights must be protected online as offline, covering freedom of speech, gender equity, rights of marginalized groups, children’s rights, privacy and more. And this remains one of the most pressing concerns in today’s digital world. A growing issue in recent years is the energy consumption of ICTs. ICTs now account for an estimated 5 to 6% of global energy use, a figure which is rising very rapidly due to AI. And while action lines emphasize ICTs’ role in environmental protection, their growing energy impact requires now urgent attention to energy-efficient solutions. Finally, there is increasing demand for digital regulation and legislation. This is a different perspective, to combat disinformation, market concentration, labor disruptions and more, and also to assert digital sovereignty, which is claimed in many countries and jurisdictions. However, as regulation is a matter of national sovereignty, the WSIS Plus 20 review process should promote harmonized legislation that supports digital sovereignty without undermining the full potential of the Internet as a globally connected resource. And a final point, the integration of the WSIS action lines with the SDGs must be strengthened. As already mapped to the SDGs, the digitalization’s role in sustainable development needs clearer actionable connections, especially beyond 2030 and when the SDGs should be revised. So thank you for your attention and I look forward to the continuation of this discussion.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you, Flavio, for your very comprehensive and very important list of different subject matters that we need to consider now that we’re looking for the WSIS review and that we want to implement further this year. Maybe I will take the point to just remind everyone, we are many panelists, everybody’s an expert, so you have a lot to say, but try to keep your remarks as short as possible so that we can have a discussion. And I will turn to you, Maria Fernanda. WSIS has always highlighted the multi-stakeholder participation as a core principle. What would meaningful inclusion look like in the WSIS Plus 20 review and the implementation after this year, and what is missing today?

Maria Fernanda Garza: Thank you, Isabel. It is a pleasure to join you this afternoon, and thank you to the Swiss government. I’m Maria Fernanda Garza, Honorary Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce and member of the Leadership Panel. Since the WSIS was envisioned in 2005, ICC has been deeply engaged, lending the support of the global business community for a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. And the outputs from this process, the Tunis Agenda and the Geneva Action Plan, focus on creating a truly global Internet where everyone can benefit from what it has to offer. Since 2003, the world around us has been evolving significantly, with new challenges on the governance of the Internet leading to fragmented policy responses that have also been influenced by the evolution of the digital technologies that are based on or go beyond the Internet. But WSIS set us out with a uniform vision and offered us a toolbox to cope with these challenges of technology. So while 20 years have passed since this toolbox was created, and new challenges have surfaced. The most important question we need to ask ourselves is whether we have been using it effectively. The WSIS architecture provides a unique and inclusive distributed governance model that promoting interoperability, multi-stakeholder collaboration to address the policy, regulatory, and legal space around the internet and digital technologies more broadly. Bringing all of these pieces together is why WSIS created the IGF. So at less than halfway to the WSIS Plus 20 review, we must rethink how to take the existing architecture into the future. And ICC shares the views presented in the Switzerland non-paper for WSIS Plus framework, which calls for strengthening existing structure addressing the architectural gaps of the WSIS process and enhancing the IGF. The WSIS Plus 20 process must not only think about inclusion, but operationalize it by integrating the implementation of the GDC as part of the WSIS Plus 20 outcomes to avoid duplications and resource strain, and by giving the IGF a permanent mandate through sustainable funding. So as a key convenor of bottom-up inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue on digital policy issues, the IGF has demonstrated its value over the past 20 years, especially as technology has evolved and policy challenges become more complex. So when we talk about meaningful inclusion in the WSIS Plus 20 review and implementation, we mean ensuring meaningful opportunities for all stakeholders to deliver key digital policy questions. of the day. Participation and informed input from all stakeholder groups will ensure that the policies and regulations are commercially viable and technically feasible, and that privacy and human rights are protected. Leaving no one behind in the digital age means ensuring that everyone has a seat at the table, but also a voice and a power to shape the digital future. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Maria Fernanda. I really liked the point you made on the fact that we have a toolbox, but are we really using all of the tools? Are we using it in the best way? I think that’s a very good metaphor for us to think about, especially this year. And I will turn now to our online speaker, Min. Maybe you could share a bit on what you see as the main challenges or concerns that the academic community is raising now regarding the role of the IGF within the broader WSIS architecture.

Min Jiang: Thank for having me on this panel, and thanks, Jorge, Isabel, and Luisa, for the great non-paper. The academic community is an integral part of the multi-stakeholder model that underpins IGF and WSIS structures and processes. Besides a forum like this, the academic community often also works with other stakeholders in governmental, technical, business communities, and civil society to advance research, ideas, and well-being in our society. From an academic perspective, IGF faces some challenges within the broader WSIS and digital governance architecture. I will flag two issues for consideration. First is deliberation versus decision-making. IGF by mandate is a non-binding, deliberative structure under the auspice of UN that allows critical issues of Internet governance or digital governance to emerge from the confluence of diverse communities. Unfortunately also, limited by its design, a lot of the great IGF discussions and outcomes do not necessarily land in decision-making fora at the UN regional or national levels. Structurally, it seems a conveyor belt of some sorts needs to exist between IGF and the larger WSIS infrastructure, as well as between multi-stakeholder and multilateral processes to transmit and even integrate IGF outcomes more effectively into decision-making processes. Otherwise, we risk taking time away from making actual binding decisions to address critical issues and challenges. A second related issue is the limited visibility and capacity of IGF in the whole universe of WSIS and digital policy-making processes. processes. Without a permanent mandate, IGF is subject to periodical WSIS review. Also, as already mentioned by Maria Fernanda, without sustainable funding, IGF really risks its status as one of the most diverse digital governance fora based on multi-holder principles. Also with a proliferating number of organizations and processes now also including GDC, IGF faces a kind of existential question. Many see GDC’s multilateral process and IGF’s multi-stakeholder process as complementary rather than antithetical to each other. So there’s no reason why the two cannot collaborate under the same UN umbrella to address pressing issues more effectively. Thank you for your attention and look forward to more discussions.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Min. I think you raised many important points on what we’re looking for now at the IGF and how we can make it potentially stronger now with the WSIS Plus 20 review. I’m going to turn to you, Juan. There is a growing complexity in this digital governance question. So what form of coordination, roadmap, shared framework, joint mechanisms or anything in that sort of sense would you see linking the different processes? And I’m particularly thinking about WSIS and GDC, but maybe there’s other points you also want to raise. And we also have a slide that we’re sharing behind.

Juan Fernandez: Thank you, Sabelle. First of all, thank the organizer of this panel for having me. And the audience, can you be with me because I will present three slides because as they say a picture is worth a thousand words. So that way I have to speak less and we will have more time to get the interaction with you. That is what is our interest. My first slide is just to motivate. It’s taken from… from the book that’s there at the right, Governing AI for Humanity. By the way, I recommend the book. But this slide shows seven processes, not from UN, of course, related with AI. And it makes the list of which countries has participated in them. As you see with the yellow in the bottom, most of the countries, and mostly of the South, cannot participate in all of them, or even in some of them. So this raises the situation that, because, of course, I agree with the substantive issues that was said by my previous speakers. But in the end, work has to be done. And we have to do it through mechanisms, through something. And we cannot have too many of them. Because otherwise, it’s impossible, especially for a developing country, to be in all of them. In that sense, I agree with what is said in the document from the Swiss government, the non-paper paper, and also from what Garza just said, that we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. We can keep the processes that were established during WSIS, of course, perfecting them now that we have the experience of the years. And these four that are in the screen now, the IGF, that we are here now, the CSTD, the WSIS Forum, and also the UN General Assembly. And there’s some arrows in the middle that is not there only for the show. Those arrows mean that there needs to be some institutional linkage and some coordination between them to avoid duplication. In the Swiss document, they go into details. I’m not going to get into details. You can check. check it in the document that mentioned UNGIS, the United Nations Group of Information Society, that groups all the agencies in the US. But I just told the Undersecretary General that was in another meeting that beyond that, we need to have a more fluid, substantive linkages and liaisons between all of this. And just to finish the last slide, I will just briefly, of course, I opened to question and to, if you want me to go into more details, but just quickly to say why the essence of those three, four mechanism. Of course, first we have the IGF. And I put them first not by chance, because the IGF is an agenda setter. It’s where from bottom up, from the national and regional IGF, problems are presented. Problems that sometimes, and many times, they’re not heard at the global level. So it’s a natural channel to channel, by the way, to channel those problems to the UN at large and to the international community at large. As Vint Cerf says in the previous IGF, in one of his intermentions, he said, IGF may not be the place to solve the problem, but it’s certainly the place to frame the problem. So that’s a very important contribution of IGF, of SCORE, and of course, because it’s all the stakeholders, policy dialogue, and it’s part of the mandate. That does not have to be changed. There’s some perfection that can be done, but OK. Then we have the Commission of Science and Technology for Development. This may sound controversial for somebody, but we need an intergovernmental space. Actually, it’s happening in the CSDD, and it has the mandate of the yearly review of the outcomes of WSIS. We need that. Somebody is still calling the enhanced cooperation. If you want, I know the story very well. I was there in Tunis when all that discussion came out. But maybe that’s for another time. We don’t have time here. But we need an intergovernmental space. And it may be the CSTD. For instance, in CSTD was decided last year to create a group for the analysis of data governance because it’s important. Maybe next year they say we will need a group for the analysis of, I don’t know, AI governance or blockchain governance, whatever. We need a place where governments can also channel their own concerns and take decisions. Of course, we have the WSIS Forum. The WSIS Forum, the mandate, original mandate, is to have the accountability of the moderator, facilitator of the action lines, and to review the action lines. And here I underline the word action because in some other forum, here in the IGF policy dialogue, in CSTD, we take decisions. But that has to be translated into actions. And I am saying that all these processes can be clearinghouse. The IGF, as a matter of fact, is a clearinghouse for policy dialogue because everybody come here. But the action lines, I just mentioned in the previous slide, in the first slide, processes that are outside the United Nations, for instance, for artificial intelligence. We don’t have an action line for artificial intelligence, but maybe we may have one. But let me put the example of the action line for cybersecurity. We have many processes from cybersecurity. Even the London process that is outside of the UN, we have the open-ended working group in Commission 1 of UNGA. And all those many people cannot be in all those places but that could converge. The result of that in the action line of cybersecurity. That is already there, it can be kept as the place for a political. review of the outcomes of the wishes of the GDC on the future. I will leave it there. I know that you may want me to go deep into something, but if we have time, please ask.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Juan, first of all for your enthusiasm in the presentation and for all of the different points. Before I go to you, Olaf, I just want to say we shared the non-paper with our distinguished panelists. I’m very happy that you’re all commenting and agreeing with the points we did. I have not asked them to endorse it. You’re free to share your own position and opinions, and I’m happy you all like it, but just to make it clear, they were all free to say whatever they wanted about it. It was just to start the conversation. But Olaf, I will turn to you. Could you maybe share a few of your thoughts on how the IGF is evolving and how it could evolve as a space for discussion or maybe a strategic platform to shape the implementation and follow-up across the digital governance landscape? I will. Please try to be brief. We want a bit of a discussion.

Participant: Is this on?

Isabelle Lois: Yes, it is on.

Participant: I’ll try to do so briefly. First, thank you for sharing the non-paper. These papers are a brilliant contribution to the global brainstorm that is happening around this topic. Brainstorming ourselves a little bit a couple of years ago, we thought about what is actually the IGF and how can we create an atmosphere in which it’s a little bit more productive. Min was referring to this conveyor belt to decisions, and in order to have a conveyor belt of decisions, we need perhaps a little bit more structure. One of the things that we identified is that if you look at the various policy topics that enter the IGF, they are of various maturity. The new ones require storming, forming, and norming by their stakeholder groups. While a little bit more mature policy topics might only need coordination and sharing of experiences. And perhaps if you’re even more mature, you can deliver best practices. You can notice that I’m a sort of an engineer going at this as a solution-oriented approach. So if you think about that and you think about policy topics that might be interesting, organize those in verticals, in pillars. I could see internet governance as its internet infrastructure governance, as its own pillar. Digital public infrastructure as its own pillar, data governance as its own pillar, AI as its own pillar, digital literacy as its own pillar. And by identifying pillars in which there is sufficient scope to do work, you can basically design work programs. Is this really about coordination, maybe reporting to each other in the community, what the state of things are, where work is being done, what work is being done? Or is this about getting to what are the problems that are on the table? What are the actual dilemmas and the storming and the norming and the forming? Across that matrix, we now get the matrix, we have the horizontals. We have the horizontals of the global equalities, the human rights, the questions around climate, technical competency that needs to be in all of those pillars, and the academic community that needs to come out of those pillars. By making work programs within those pillars, you have a little bit of a continuity and a chance of producing outcome that will be picked up either by the communities in, say, their regional and national internet governance bodies, picked up by governance, or perhaps reported up to the food chain, as you just described it. And with that, that’s sort of the idea. The pitch.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much for the pitch. I really liked it. Short, sweet, and to the point. And without further ado, I will turn to our last panelist, Eugénie, please. If we’re zooming out maybe a bit, but considering the ongoing or starting discussions on WSIS Plus 20 review and the whole UN system, both in New York and in Geneva, how are you approaching this process from sort of a governmental perspective? What are the key issues that are being raised that you think should be raised throughout the different UN fora?

Participant: Thank you for the invitation to join this panel. I’m glad to be here. I think you know that the internet in Brazil is based on a multi-stakeholder model. The Internet Steering Committee, also known as CGI, I think most of you are familiar with what we have been doing. We are now celebrating 30 years of this Internet Steering Committee. And you also might be familiar with the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines that were adopted last year during the next Plus 10. And this is the foundation of our position. And I want to congratulate Switzerland for the non-paper. I fully recommend those in the audience to read this non-paper as food for thought, because it has some interesting ideas. One of them, for example, a joint implementation roadmap, because we always talk about avoiding duplication of efforts, avoiding creating new platforms. And it would perhaps make no sense that we have two different tracks dealing with the same subject matter. So we have the WSIS platform. plus 20 and also have the Global Digital Compact, the GDC. So the challenge is how can we integrate both processes? And in terms of negotiations in New York, you have probably read the elements paper by the co-facilitators of the WSIS process. Our assessment is that they have tried to make a comprehensive document highlighting the benefits of technology, but also the risks associated with digital technologies. But in terms of proposals, actually the co-facilitators were very cautious. They are promising for the zero draft coming by August, possibly, to come up with some concrete ideas in terms of how we can go forward for this process, which has a timeline for December in New York. But also these have ongoing negotiations on the GDC, especially the AI track. I think some of you may have read there is the third draft, which are the terms of reference and modalities for the AI scientific panel, the International Independent Scientific Panel on AI, but also the AI Global Dialogue that is both are coming from the GDC. And this draft was circulated to UN member states and the deadline is tomorrow. So there is a silence procedure and we don’t know exactly if delegations would break the silence. We have some major players, but also the G77 representing developing countries. I think they are having a meeting, a coordinated meeting today to decide what to do. So all of this is happening at the same time, but what we have is a challenging political environment, particularly this year, with growing polarization, geopolitical tensions, the ideological divide. Some people talk about the tech Cold War. So this is difficult, adding complexity to how we organize the global digital ecosystem. I say to my colleagues that we have a window of opportunity, but when we open this window, there is a storm outside. So bad timing, but this is something that we need to see how we can move forward despite these challenges. And to finish, three points on the future of IGF. First, that IGF should be made permanent. I think it doesn’t make any sense that we are discussing again and again renewing the mandate of the IGF, which has a very important role. And I see some consensus from delegations in New York about this. Maybe this is a low-hanging fruit that we can secure if we manage to have stable and predictable funding. But this is, of course, my second point. And the third is rebranding IGF. This is another suggestion in the Swiss non-paper, because what we see here, not only in Billiström, but also in previous IGFs, we don’t talk about it. the internet governance per se, we have AI, we have emerging technologies, several other issues, information integrity and so on. So this would acknowledge a reality that it’s, of course, we need to discuss if this is also feasible and the question, can we reach a compromise? So I’ll stop here and looking forward to the discussions.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Eugenio. Thank you. Thank you all for your very interesting and important thoughts. We have about half an hour for questions and comments from maybe the audience. I have a few questions if no one has something to say. I’m looking at you, dear listeners. Anyone want to ask something? Otherwise, I have a sort of overarching question that I think we can think about. And maybe if someone wants to come up and ask something, yes, please. The mics are on the side. In the meantime, whilst you walk over to the mic, I think we, I would like for us to think a bit on our perspective as different stakeholder groups and maybe think about the main challenges, concerns that we want to get out or that we think we could solve with the WSIS Plus 20 review this year and outcome. Please, Jacques, I see that you are first on the mic. Go ahead, ask your question or say your comments.

Jacques Becklinger: Well, first of all, I thank you, all the panel, for a wonderful contribution. And my name is Jacques Becklinger. I am here speaking in support of the European IGF EuroDIG and also president of the Swiss IGF Supporting Association. And with pleasure I read in the very good non-paper that also the role of the NRIs are addressed as the ground operation. So in business, we know all business is local. And the IGF is not just happening somewhere in New York or somewhere in cyberspace, but it’s actually happening on the ground. So I would just remind that. And in maybe future version 3, would be great to have even expanded a little bit on the role of what’s happening on the ground in… I think, 140 or something local IGFs.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Jacques. Bertrand, I will immediately take your question or comment.

Bertrand de la Chapelle: Anyway, my name is Bertrand de la Chapelle, I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network. I want to focus on one thing, the question of the renewal of the mandate of the IGF has been mentioned. I, of course, like many people, wholeheartedly support the extension and even making it permanent. However, it’s not enough. 20 years in, it’s time to take stock. I do not expect the WSIS plus 20 process by December to make decisions on how to improve the IGF further, how to revise its mandate, how to more formally institutionalize it, which I think is the right time, 20 years in. However, I take the example of what was achieved with the Working Group on Internet Governance in 2004 and 2005, which was one of the rare truly multi-stakeholder groupings that initiated not only the definition of Internet Governance, but also the concept of a forum that gave birth to the IGF. I strongly believe that 2026, with an impetus coming from the WSIS plus 20 review, should be about what is and should be the evolution and the revision of the mandate of the IGF to make it formally what it is supposed to be, an issue framing exercise and an agenda setting, as Juan said. And second, how to institutionalize it more coherently. in a charter of sorts that establishes the different powers and capacities of the existing building blocks that we have. So I think there is an articulation that we should take into account during the WSIS Plus 20 review to think about how to organize the discussion that has to take place in 2026. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. Maybe we can continue, I see there’s two more people, Anna, please.

Anna Osserling: Thank you so much for this conversation. My name is Anna Osserling and I’m from Article 19, an international human rights organization focusing on free speech. I really would like to thank Switzerland for this non-paper, it’s really much appreciated. I speak on behalf of Article 19, we’re also a member of the Global Digital Rights Coalition for WSIS, by the way. Two points I wanted to amplify in this paper and one question I wanted to put to you. The first point is really, and I’ve said this in so many sessions already so I feel like a broken record, but I do think it’s important. We need to strengthen the human rights language across the whole WSIS agenda, vision, architecture. This is absolutely crucial. The impact on the enjoyment of human rights, and I mean all human rights, so I’m talking about freedom of expression, of course, but equally labor, social, economic, etc. rights. The second point I want to make is about inclusion, and this is extremely important. At the moment in the Elements paper, that element is a little bit missing, and we would love to see this a little bit stronger. Also in this non-paper, it could be a little bit stronger. And when I talk about inclusion, I mean this in the broadest sense of the word. It’s really important to include all underserved communities across the globe, obviously within the global majority, but also across the globe that are communities that are not fully represented right now in the WSIS architecture and vision. And then thirdly, I fully agree with what you’re saying in terms of trying to integrate. There are so many processes going on. on, whether it’s on data governance, AI governance, etc., there’s a GDC, it’s becoming very confusing. So I really like your proposal for a joint implementation roadmap. So my question is, could you perhaps elaborate that a little bit more on how you see that in practice? Because we fully support the principle of it, the idea of it, but perhaps it’s good to hear your thinking a little bit about how you see that in practice. Thank you so much.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Anna, and I think we can get the last question. I’m sorry, sir, I don’t know your name, but please introduce yourself.

Audience: My name is Kosi, I’m a Sinoan, I come from Benin. I’m from the Ministry of Economy and Finance. I’m also chair of an NGO called Women Be Free. We all agree that IGF plays a good role today, but when we look at the agenda, we are talking about many things. It’s not only internet, we are not talking about only internet here. I don’t know if it makes sense to see if it’s possible today to change the name and look at something very different and will permit us to talk about all the things concerning digital space globally. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. Please, sir.

Oktavian Šofranski: My name is Oktavian Šofranski, I’m with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. I have in my hand the declaration of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the World Summit on the Information Society, plus 20 review, and the extension of its mandate, which certainly you maybe heard about, it supports this extension with many different recommendations. I will focus on one aspect, cooperation with technology companies that are so important for the building of the architecture of this digital world. The Council of Europe has set up some years ago… So, a partnership with digital companies and we have consultations, we have them as part of our committee works to develop corporate social responsibility, various ethical standards, ethics by design, etc. What can be done more to engage at the global level, to engage more the business community to forward our goals?

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much. And yes, I know about the statement, it’s actually a very good summary of what we could agree on at the Council of Europe. Bruna, please.

Audience: I forgot my headphones for some reason, sorry. No, just two points actually. I think we speak a lot about inclusion of stakeholders within the IGF and WSIS, but we often forgot to address what are the gaps and what are the problems around here, right? And as much as many of us, I’m part of a civil society organization, as part of civil society stakeholder within the IGF, but it seems that it’s growing, that we’re forgetting to address all of the gaps, we’re forgetting to address the differences in levels of participation and that’s, to me, one of the main points we need to tackle within this review and within the next steps and looking forward to what could be the next 20 years of the IGF. And just to quote an example, I think we had a rather good session this morning on the future of work in AI, where there was no perspective from civil society in that conversation, in a topic that’s so relevant, that’s going to be part of what’s going to come out of the WSIS review, and it’s really relevant that we, again, keep addressing those points and so on. Just jumping briefly into the AI conversation, it’s really relevant that we don’t just allow for the global north perspective to, not to win, but to be the dominant. And I think that’s a very important question. And I think that’s a very important question, and I think that’s a very important one within this conversation. We do have gaps, we do have problems, many countries in the world that are trying to tackle this question through different lenses. And it’s really important that when addressing the inclusion of AI within the WSIS framework, we do, there is some sort of evaluation or how we can balance the two, and we do that with the WSIS framework, and we do that with the WSIS framework, and we do that with the WSIS framework, and we do that with the relevant ones. It’s really good that we achieve some level of compromise or balance within that, just that. Thanks.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Bruna, and I truly agree with the point of working on how we can be more inclusive, on working for always better. The multistakeholder element of every session we have at IGF, of every part of the system, and to think about it. I am very excited to see the work that you are doing, and to think about the work that the WSIS framework is doing. This is a very good resource on how we can be and think deeply about multistakeholderism and how we can include it in every aspect of our work. Maybe I will open up to my panel around here. Is there anyone who wants to comment or say something on the different points that were raised from the floor? We had a lot of thoughts and ideas on the IGF, specifically, about how we can think about multistakeholderism and how we can include it in every aspect of our work. I’m looking around at all of you. Anyone who wants to take the floor? I’m sorry. Juan? You want to? Please, go ahead.

Juan Fernandez: Just only briefly to comment in the proposal that has been made several times of the change of name, of internet to digital. Earlier this morning, there was a presentation about the imagervation that was supposed to come, as well. It was an attack on the creative rainforest, and you know that’s an essential book. address that problem in depth, and think he is already distributing some notes. I think that in the note he explained, he even has a graphic with a pyramid of concepts. And of course, what’s in a name? We could name it the way we want, if we have the definition of what that means, a name. But he argues, and I agree with him, that the definition of internet as a concept, it encompasses many of the things that is happening today. Because what’s digital without internet nowadays? What is artificial intelligence without internet or networks based on the internet protocol? So of course, there can be arguments in pro and in con, but it’s not necessary to change name, if that’s the name that is already engraved in the minds of many people outside of this room and of these themes. Because that’s important. Sometimes we think that we are the only one around working on this, but it’s not the case. There are many people taking decisions that influence this that are not technical savvy or something like that. And it’s better to keep the things that works and not change it very much. That’s the same with name. Of course, if there’s a majority that changes name, they’re OK. It will be OK. But that’s the way I think that we should study what Jovan said. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Juan, for both the book recommendation and your thoughts on the name change. I think, Eugenio, you wanted to share your thoughts as well. Please go ahead.

Participant: Sure. Thank you. Yes, on the IGF, I think becoming more institutionalized or expanding the mandates. And I think the discussion here is if the IGF can become policy relevant, because right now we see as all these panels, they are great to have stakeholder engagement, but we are not really negotiating any outcome. And I think when we think about New York and the UN, some member states are clearly opposing any. We had the discussion on AI governance, the global dialogue that is being now considered, and some delegations are against any negotiated outcome. So this is a challenge that we need to face. But I want to go back to one of the questions on inclusion and diversity, because of course we need to ensure that the inclusion of women and girls, children and youth, older persons, persons with disabilities, migrants, refugees, internally displaced persons, indigenous peoples and groups in vulnerable situations. Because I think you know that Brazil will be hosting the COP30 next November in Belém on climate change. It’s the first ever COP in the Amazon rainforest. Because the principle here is nothing about us without us. So we think about indigenous peoples. So please come, come to Belém and see how reality is in the Amazon, to meet people, engage with them. And we think that digital technologies can be a plus in terms of facilitating more engagement from these groups. So we are preparing like a metaverse for people to engage remotely. Because of course nobody can guarantee that we have all. These groups represent physically in Berlin, but we need to provide solutions. And I think online meetings and online environments would help us to do this. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Eugenio. And I know that Anita just wanted to say something, and I have Min online and then Olaf. So go ahead.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you. I think I have an overall reflection about the non-paper and, of course, the comments. One thing is that in getting the WSIS architecture right and making it fit for purpose, at least for the next 10 years, an important thing that needs to be done is to look at the evidence on the ground about the real politic of how negotiations take place. And, I mean, I think it’s too crude to say who wins. But what I really mean is how does public interest really get defined? You know, how does it materialize? And to that extent, I must say that Section 7.5, I was not completely convinced that you have thought it through. And I really like the approach that the Australian non-paper takes to, you know, to frame the issues, which it says is what is the evidence and what have we heard? And what is the evidence in the Australia non-paper? It’s really about studying documentation about what’s coming up on specific issues. To that extent, I’d really like to think about the CSTD’s role a little bit more carefully, because if we really want to bolster enhanced cooperation and also promote multi-stakeholder cooperation, I think it’s important to think about whether a CSTD that’s offering guidance, you know, to governments, or the way in which governments bring their thoughts to define issues in the… the digital arena will be benefited from private interests also defining the agenda. So for instance, in the WHO, there have been private philanthropists who have completely defined what illnesses should actually be prioritized in the world. And there is copious amounts of evidence to tell you that that has really not served the world. It has not served the cause of equity and certainly public health. So the public health of the digital certainly depends on the agenda to be set through democratic processes where people’s interest is put ahead. And I’m not sure if private interests get into the CSTD. We are going to be able to see agenda setting in quite the same way that will serve public interest. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Anita. And maybe before I give the floor to the next comments and we only have 15 minutes, I’m trying to be mindful of the time. I think the point we are trying to raise in the paper just so that it’s clear is not private interest coming into the spaces, but truly a multi-stakeholder element. So I just wanted to point that out, but we can discuss it further. Please, Olaf, I know that you wanted to say something and then we have Min online. I have not forgotten you.

Participant: It’s a bit of the name change that I wanted to get into. When I described the architecture, I consciously used the word internet infrastructure coordination. I do think that all these pieces, data governance, AI, need to be compacted in one forum. And the name internet governance forum is a nice one. I have no objections keeping them. But I want to tie it back a little bit to the elements paper. Because if you read the elements paper, the only place where multi-stakeholderism is being mentioned is in the internet governance section. While the other sections, the data governance sections and the AI sections have a much more multilateral tone. So I do think that we need to keep that, at least that’s the way that I read it. And I do think that that is something we need to keep in the back of our minds. If we talk about name changes or perhaps even entity changes that we take care that also those other topics would have global spanning effects where that flywheel of global IGF region regional IGF, national IGF and back and forth is actually relevant, stays in place as well.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much for your thoughts. Min online, I know you’ve been waiting for a bit and then we have Flavio and maybe also Maria Fernanda.

Min Jiang: Thank you. As emphasised already by other speakers on the panel and audience participants, WSIS 20 plus 20, IGF and GDC and many other digital governance processes would have to address the present challenge of AI and the role of the global south in policymaking processes. AI is currently a central galvanising issue that intersects with many other issues that you flagged in the NAM paper, including data governance, environmental impact, digital divide, information integrity, human rights, human rights not only in normative terms, but also in social economic terms and digital public infrastructure. And why don’t we talk about a global public option to AI? So the other piece is the participation of the global south and I deem it really critical. This is an old issue that can go back to the New World Information Communication Order, New Waco debate in the 1970s to address the power imbalances between the global north and global south. So there’s a historical legacy there, but more specifically at the time in the 1970s between the United States and the rest of the world. In a way, sort of the history really rhymes at the current moment, the US administration is trying to adopt to stop individual states from regulating AI in the next decade. So given the limited number of countries, particularly US and China, are really ahead of the rest in AI development, it is really critically important to be globally inclusive in our policymaking processes. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Min, and I agree on the essentialness of being inclusive. Flavio, I know you wanted to share your thoughts as well.

Flavio Vagner: Yeah, thank you. I would like to make a comment which is somewhat related to the issue raised by Bertrand and also addressed by Olaf, namely how the IJF should evolve in the future, and also to the question of the gaps on the WSIS architecture. We need, of course, a much better integration between the IJF and the WSIS Forum, and I think this is almost a low-hanging fruit for the WSIS plus 20 review process. One possible way to achieve this is through some concrete institutionalized multi-stakeholder coordination mechanism, and this is addressed in the Swiss non-paper. This may help fill gaps, avoid duplications, and create an effective exchange of outcomes in both directions, between the IJF and the WSIS Forum. And this would also help achieve one of the major improvements that is required for the IJF, and this has been said for many years, namely that its multiple outcomes, for instance from its many intersessional work streams, are conveyed to decision-makers in a more effective way. And as Juan very well stated, and others, the IJF has a role for agenda-setting and bring emerging issues, possible solutions, and even already reactions from the various stakeholder groups to those issues and solutions. And this is a powerful input to other processes or forums involving decision-makers, and there we have the WSIS Forum, while the IJF shall continue as a dialogue space, convening all the multi-stakeholder, all the stakeholder groups, the WSIS Forum has a tradition of attracting more representatives from governments and from UN agencies, they discuss the advancements along the WSIS action lines. So the inputs from the IJF should become concrete and important contributions to the WSIS Forums and to the assessment of the action lines.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Flavio. Maria Fernanda, I will give you the floor now.

Maria Fernanda Garza: Thank you very much. Going back to my early comments on the need to ensure meaningful regular avenues for stakeholders to deliberate digital policy, the International Chamber of Commerce stands ready to serve as a bridge between businesses around the world and UN efforts to implement and strengthen the WSIS architecture. We can channel the voices of companies, large and small, from every region, ensuring their experiences and concerns are heard, and through ICC business action to support information society. We are engaging with existing multi-stakeholder efforts to coordinate input into the WSIS Plus 20 review, and we are committed to continue our contributions to those to ensure that the input of the next phase of the liberations is truly representative and truly operational. I’m also pleased to have been able to respond to this task through my role at the IGF Leadership Panel. And on that point, I would urge you to consider that the paper that the Leadership Panel, with the support of the MAG, have put together, the outlook of the IGF, which can serve as an important complement in our broader campaign to strengthen the IGF’s role in the UN system, make the IGF a permanent structure supported by the regular UN budget, and ensure the viability of the multi-stakeholder model for the consideration of Internet governance and digital policy issues, and enable the IGF to adapt to future needs as the Internet and digital technologies continue to evolve. And to enable this, we need a solid strategic approach to communications that informs, educates, and elevates interest in the IGF among UN member countries. Our paper provides useful recommendations on developing clear communications, channels, and messages to demonstrate the influence of IGF discussions on international policy dialogues, including the G20, the G7, and UN bodies, and introducing structured follow-up mechanisms to track and report to the implementation and impact of IGF recommendations, making our contributions more visible and tangible. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Maria Fernanda. only highlight what you just said. It’s a very good document and I recommend if you have not read it to read the different points that are being raised there. Maybe I will use my privilege as moderator and share a few thoughts. I really like that I think all of you, or most if not all, have highlighted the importance of having an inclusive participation, of thinking of Global South, also priorities and perspectives for this WSIS plus 20 review and getting a fair, I think a fair deal for all. And I think this is something that Switzerland is very aligned with this idea of first of all engaging in the preparation for the review and the negotiations in a positive way of trying to find a positive some gain. We have the opportunity to get something really good, to agree on a document that we’re happy about, to next year when we’re starting the implementation of the WSIS plus 20 outcomes we’re happy with the result. And I think it shows here that there is a willingness to actively contribute to the negotiations, to actively contribute to the inputs on the elements paper and to find something that’s positive. And I think this IGF, at least so far from what I’ve attended, has really shown the beautiful impact it can have, how the questions that are raised, the sort of the agenda setting power that we’ve discussed here is really being used and will hopefully I think come out of a zero draft for the WSIS plus 20 and then the negotiations I’m sure as well. So I think this is something that’s that is very good and I wanted to highlight this sort of positive outtake that I’m getting from this conversation and reminding sort of everyone we we have time, there’s not much time until December, but we still have time to get something great and considering sort of a fair deal for Arl is something that’s a priority for us. I think we have four minutes left, maybe I could all give you, oh sorry there’s a comment online, apologies Louisa please.

Participant: Yeah maybe just allow me to read out a comment from Mark Colwell online who was talking about and adding up on what Chuck Beglinger said about importance of the NRIs and how actually as well it is wished to them to be included in the elements paper and to have a special mention. event about now I think 176 initiatives which are here so just about the whole ecosystem of the IGF with being taken into account and also yeah he was talking about that the outcomes of the IGF as well as the international intersessional activities over with the 30 dynamic coalitions that they need to be better communicated and their concrete outputs advocated both in the IJS as well as in the versus forum so yeah there’s just a comment to mention was that online

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much Louisa for reading out the comment and for sharing that and sorry I should have been paying more attention to what is happening online and three minutes left maybe I could give you the opportunity to give a word or a sentence that you wish if you imagine yourself January 2026 we’ve finished the negotiations we have with this plus 20 review how do you feel what are you happy about may I ask you or genuine start and I’m sorry to put the spot

Participant: Yes thank you I think this is an ongoing conversation next we have the with this forum in Geneva next July and also the AI for good summits so the road to December is they’ll have many opportunities to go deeper into this discussion but it’s essential that we incorporate that the global South voice are on board fully on board because and I said about indigenous peoples nothing about us without us so that’s the same for developing countries because we first take the global majority as they say we are going nowhere if you don’t include them in this the outcome that we expect to achieve by December.

Isabelle Lois: Absolutely Flavio one word or one sentence 2026 what are you happy about.

Flavio Vagner: Yeah so I think the major challenge for the IGF is not the renewal of its mandate I think this will be certainly achieved in the WSIS Plus 20 review process, but its future role. So it must have a much more important role already within the WSIS architecture. So in January, I would be very happy, expecting that the IJF has been considered as one of the outcomes of the WSIS Plus 20 review process as the main discussion space for all digital governance issues, not only internet governance, also AI and all other emerging issues, and a focal point for the follow-up of both the GDC and the WSIS processes. Thank you. That would make me happy.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you. Anita?

Anita Gurumurthy: I think I would like to echo the sentiment of Eugenio, but I’d like to add that in harmonizing the architecture in relation to the WSIS, we shouldn’t forget that the WSIS architecture itself needs to be harmonized with the larger agenda of the multilateral system to be just and fair, which includes intersections of the digital agenda with fair trade, with fair intellectual property, with climate justice, gender equality, taxation, competition, and all of those issues that make the voices of the global South so special, so relevant and pertinent to the WSIS.

Isabelle Lois: Absolutely. Min, online, do you want to share your sentence or your word for?

Min Jiang: Thank you. I believe IJF, WSIS, and GDC share similar goals and aspirations under the same UN umbrella. There is a way for us to actually put public interest, global South, and also inclusive processes in the spotlight to make the joint architecture happen. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you. Juan? What’s the question? Close your eyes. You’re in January 2026. Everything went well. And we are very happy about it. One word, one sentence.

Juan Fernandez: A lot of work.

Isabelle Lois: Maria Fernanda.

Maria Fernanda Garza: Well, that nobody is left behind in this digital age. And that means ensuring, as I said before, that everyone has a seat at the table, a voice, and the power in shaping the digital future. And that is the vision that embodies the IJF.

Isabelle Lois: It is. Olaf.

Participant: We wake up and we have strong commitments from all over the world to bridge that digital divide. And that begins with bringing the internet to the people who don’t have it now and want to have it.

Isabelle Lois: That is beautiful. Thank you so much. And maybe I would give my word, if I can. And I’m sorry, I know we’re over time. I think I would say that we have a fair deal for all. And on that note, I apologize for taking a bit extra of your time. Thank you so much, all of the panelists, for sharing your thoughts, and all of you for listening and sharing your concerns. Thank you.

Agreement points

Switzerland’s non-paper provides valuable framework for WSIS Plus 20 review

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Flavio Vagner
– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Min Jiang
– Juan Fernandez
– Participant
– Anna Osserling

Arguments

Existing action lines are flexible enough to encompass new challenges, updates should focus on implementation architecture rather than creating new action lines

WSIS action lines are comprehensive and technology-agnostic, maintaining validity after 20 years but need emphasis on emerging issues

WSIS provides a unique distributed governance model that should be strengthened rather than replaced

Need for joint implementation roadmap to integrate WSIS Plus 20 and GDC processes to avoid duplication

Need for institutional linkages between IGF, CSTD, WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly to avoid duplication

Switzerland’s non-paper offers thoughtful recommendations for strengthening existing structures

Summary

Multiple speakers praised Switzerland’s non-paper as providing thoughtful and valuable recommendations for the WSIS Plus 20 review process, emphasizing strengthening existing structures rather than creating new ones

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

IGF should be made permanent with sustainable funding

Speakers

– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Min Jiang
– Participant

Arguments

Need for sustainable funding mechanisms for IGF operations

IGF faces challenges in translating deliberative outcomes into decision-making processes, needs better conveyor belt to binding decisions

IGF should be made permanent with stable funding and potentially rebranded to reflect broader digital governance scope

Summary

Speakers agreed that the IGF has demonstrated its value over 20 years and should be made permanent with sustainable funding, rather than continuing periodic mandate renewals

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Need for better coordination and integration between WSIS, GDC, and IGF processes

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Min Jiang
– Juan Fernandez
– Flavio Vagner
– Participant

Arguments

Better linking needed between WSIS and GDC review tracks with IGF’s annual review process

WSIS provides a unique distributed governance model that should be strengthened rather than replaced

Need for global public option to AI and addressing power imbalances between Global North and South

Need for institutional linkages between IGF, CSTD, WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly to avoid duplication

IGF needs better integration with WSIS Forum through institutionalized multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms

Need for joint implementation roadmap to integrate WSIS Plus 20 and GDC processes to avoid duplication

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasized the need to avoid duplication and create better coordination mechanisms between various digital governance processes, particularly WSIS, GDC, and IGF

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Critical importance of Global South inclusion and addressing participation gaps

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Flavio Vagner
– Min Jiang
– Juan Fernandez
– Anna Osserling
– Participant
– Audience

Arguments

Need to strengthen participation from developing country civil society and governments in standard-setting processes

Data governance and concerns about data colonialism from Global South perspective need attention

Need for global public option to AI and addressing power imbalances between Global North and South

AI governance processes often exclude Global South countries, creating participation gaps

Importance of including underserved communities globally and addressing participation gaps

Digital technologies can facilitate engagement from vulnerable groups through online environments and remote participation

Need to prevent Global North dominance in AI governance and ensure balanced perspectives

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized the critical need to address historical power imbalances and ensure meaningful participation from Global South countries and underserved communities in digital governance processes

Topics

Development | Human rights

IGF’s role as agenda setter and problem framer should be strengthened

Speakers

– Juan Fernandez
– Min Jiang
– Flavio Vagner
– Participant

Arguments

IGF serves as agenda setter and problem framer, channeling issues from bottom-up through national and regional IGFs

IGF faces challenges in translating deliberative outcomes into decision-making processes, needs better conveyor belt to binding decisions

IGF needs better integration with WSIS Forum through institutionalized multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms

IGF could benefit from structured work programs organized in policy pillars with different maturity levels

Summary

Speakers agreed that the IGF’s unique role in agenda-setting and problem-framing from bottom-up should be strengthened, with better mechanisms to translate outcomes into decision-making processes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers agreed that the current WSIS action lines are sufficiently flexible and comprehensive to address new challenges without requiring fundamental restructuring, but need updates to emphasize emerging issues that have become tangible realities

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Flavio Vagner

Arguments

Existing action lines are flexible enough to encompass new challenges, updates should focus on implementation architecture rather than creating new action lines

WSIS action lines are comprehensive and technology-agnostic, maintaining validity after 20 years but need emphasis on emerging issues

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

These speakers shared a vision of truly inclusive digital governance where all stakeholders, particularly from underserved communities and Global South, have not just participation but actual power to influence outcomes

Speakers

– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Min Jiang
– Participant

Arguments

Meaningful inclusion requires ensuring all stakeholders have seat at table, voice, and power to shape digital future

Need for global public option to AI and addressing power imbalances between Global North and South

Digital technologies can facilitate engagement from vulnerable groups through online environments and remote participation

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers emphasized the need for concrete institutional mechanisms to better integrate IGF outcomes with other WSIS processes, particularly the WSIS Forum, to avoid duplication and improve effectiveness

Speakers

– Juan Fernandez
– Flavio Vagner

Arguments

Need for institutional linkages between IGF, CSTD, WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly to avoid duplication

IGF needs better integration with WSIS Forum through institutionalized multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected consensus

Business community engagement in digital governance

Speakers

– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Oktavian Šofranski
– Audience

Arguments

ICC ready to serve as bridge between businesses worldwide and UN implementation efforts

Need for better engagement of business community in global digital governance architecture

Need for better engagement of business community in global digital governance through partnerships

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus across different stakeholder groups (business, intergovernmental organization, and audience) about the need for better business engagement in digital governance, suggesting recognition that private sector participation is essential rather than problematic

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Potential rebranding of IGF to reflect broader digital governance scope

Speakers

– Participant
– Audience
– Juan Fernandez

Arguments

IGF should be made permanent with stable funding and potentially rebranded to reflect broader digital governance scope

Need to change IGF name to reflect broader digital governance scope beyond just internet

CSTD provides necessary intergovernmental space for government concerns and decision-making

Explanation

There was unexpected openness from multiple speakers to consider rebranding the IGF to reflect its evolution beyond traditional internet governance, though Juan Fernandez provided a counterargument about keeping established terminology

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Recognition of CSTD’s important intergovernmental role

Speakers

– Juan Fernandez
– Anita Gurumurthy

Arguments

CSTD provides necessary intergovernmental space for government concerns and decision-making

WSIS architecture should harmonize with broader multilateral system for justice including trade, IP, climate, and gender equality

Explanation

Despite potential controversy, there was recognition from both speakers about the importance of intergovernmental spaces like CSTD, though Anita raised concerns about private interests potentially influencing agenda-setting in such spaces

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on key structural issues: strengthening existing WSIS architecture rather than creating new processes, making IGF permanent with sustainable funding, improving coordination between various digital governance processes, and ensuring meaningful Global South participation. There was also agreement on the value of Switzerland’s non-paper as a foundation for discussions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on structural and procedural issues, with speakers from different stakeholder groups (civil society, academia, government, business) largely aligned on the need for institutional strengthening, better coordination, and inclusive participation. This strong consensus suggests good prospects for productive negotiations in the WSIS Plus 20 review process, though implementation details may require further discussion.

Different viewpoints

Role of private interests in intergovernmental spaces like CSTD

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Isabelle Lois

Arguments

WSIS architecture should harmonize with broader multilateral system for justice including trade, IP, climate, and gender equality

Switzerland’s non-paper offers thoughtful recommendations for strengthening existing structures

Summary

Anita Gurumurthy expressed concerns about private interests getting into the CSTD, arguing that this could undermine democratic agenda-setting and public interest, citing WHO examples where private philanthropists defined illness priorities. Isabelle Lois clarified that the Swiss non-paper advocates for multi-stakeholder participation rather than private interest dominance, but the fundamental disagreement remains about the appropriate level of private sector involvement in intergovernmental decision-making spaces.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Economic

Whether to change IGF name to reflect broader digital governance scope

Speakers

– Juan Fernandez
– Audience

Arguments

IGF serves as agenda setter and problem framer, channeling issues from bottom-up through national and regional IGFs

Need to change IGF name to reflect broader digital governance scope beyond just internet

Summary

Juan Fernandez argued against changing the IGF name, stating that the internet concept already encompasses many current digital issues including AI, and that it’s better to keep things that work rather than change names that are already established in people’s minds. An audience member from Benin argued for changing the name since IGF now discusses many digital issues beyond just internet governance. This reflects a fundamental disagreement about whether the current branding adequately represents the forum’s evolved scope.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Scope of multi-stakeholder participation in intergovernmental processes

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Isabelle Lois

Arguments

WSIS architecture should harmonize with broader multilateral system for justice including trade, IP, climate, and gender equality

Goal of ensuring nobody is left behind in digital age with fair deal for all stakeholders

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because both speakers generally supported multi-stakeholder approaches and strengthening WSIS architecture. However, Anita’s specific concern about private interests in CSTD revealed a fundamental tension about how to balance multi-stakeholder participation with protecting public interest in intergovernmental spaces. This suggests deeper philosophical differences about the appropriate boundaries of multi-stakeholder governance even among generally aligned participants.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high levels of agreement on major goals and principles, with most disagreements being tactical rather than strategic. The main areas of disagreement centered on institutional design questions (private sector role in CSTD, IGF naming) and specific implementation mechanisms for shared goals like coordination and inclusion.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high consensus on fundamental principles. The disagreements that existed were primarily about implementation approaches rather than core objectives, suggesting strong potential for finding common ground. The unexpected disagreement about multi-stakeholder boundaries in intergovernmental spaces may require more careful navigation in future negotiations, but overall the discussion demonstrated substantial alignment among diverse stakeholders on WSIS Plus 20 priorities.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers agreed that the current WSIS action lines are sufficiently flexible and comprehensive to address new challenges without requiring fundamental restructuring, but need updates to emphasize emerging issues that have become tangible realities

Speakers

– Anita Gurumurthy
– Flavio Vagner

Arguments

Existing action lines are flexible enough to encompass new challenges, updates should focus on implementation architecture rather than creating new action lines

WSIS action lines are comprehensive and technology-agnostic, maintaining validity after 20 years but need emphasis on emerging issues

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

These speakers shared a vision of truly inclusive digital governance where all stakeholders, particularly from underserved communities and Global South, have not just participation but actual power to influence outcomes

Speakers

– Maria Fernanda Garza
– Min Jiang
– Participant

Arguments

Meaningful inclusion requires ensuring all stakeholders have seat at table, voice, and power to shape digital future

Need for global public option to AI and addressing power imbalances between Global North and South

Digital technologies can facilitate engagement from vulnerable groups through online environments and remote participation

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers emphasized the need for concrete institutional mechanisms to better integrate IGF outcomes with other WSIS processes, particularly the WSIS Forum, to avoid duplication and improve effectiveness

Speakers

– Juan Fernandez
– Flavio Vagner

Arguments

Need for institutional linkages between IGF, CSTD, WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly to avoid duplication

IGF needs better integration with WSIS Forum through institutionalized multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Key takeaways

The existing WSIS action lines are flexible and comprehensive enough to address new digital challenges without requiring complete restructuring, but need updates to implementation architecture

There is strong consensus that the IGF should be made permanent with stable funding and potentially rebranded to reflect broader digital governance beyond just internet governance

A joint implementation roadmap is needed to integrate WSIS Plus 20 and Global Digital Compact (GDC) processes to avoid duplication of efforts and resources

Meaningful inclusion of Global South countries and underserved communities is critical for the legitimacy and effectiveness of future digital governance architecture

The IGF serves effectively as an agenda-setter and problem-framer but needs better mechanisms to translate deliberative outcomes into binding decision-making processes

Emerging technologies like AI require careful integration across multiple WSIS action lines as both enablers and threats, with particular attention to Global South participation in standard-setting

Better institutional coordination is needed between IGF, CSTD, WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly to create effective linkages and avoid fragmentation

Human rights language and protections need strengthening across the entire WSIS architecture, covering all dimensions of rights online and offline

Public financing gaps are creating architectural weaknesses in WSIS implementation, requiring attention to sustainable funding mechanisms

Resolutions and action items

Switzerland’s non-paper to serve as ‘food for thought’ for community input into WSIS Plus 20 review process

Participants encouraged to provide input on elements paper for WSIS Plus 20 negotiations by co-facilitators

IGF Leadership Panel paper on IGF outlook to be considered as complement to efforts strengthening IGF’s UN system role

National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) outcomes to be better communicated and advocated in both IGF and WSIS Forum

Development of structured follow-up mechanisms to track and report implementation and impact of IGF recommendations

Creation of institutionalized multi-stakeholder coordination mechanism between IGF and WSIS Forum

Integration of intersessional work streams and dynamic coalition outputs into broader policy processes

Unresolved issues

Specific mechanisms for how joint implementation roadmap between WSIS Plus 20 and GDC would work in practice

Whether and how to change IGF name from ‘Internet Governance Forum’ to reflect broader digital governance scope

How to balance private sector participation in intergovernmental spaces like CSTD while maintaining public interest focus

Concrete metrics and accountability mechanisms for measuring progress across WSIS action lines and GDC tracks

How to address growing energy consumption of ICTs and environmental impact of digital technologies

Specific funding mechanisms and sources for sustainable IGF operations and broader WSIS implementation

How to ensure Global South meaningful participation in AI governance and standard-setting processes dominated by Global North

Integration of WSIS digital agenda with broader multilateral issues like trade, intellectual property, climate justice, and taxation

How to operationalize ‘enhanced cooperation’ concept from original WSIS framework in current context

Suggested compromises

Keep existing WSIS action lines but update implementation architecture rather than creating entirely new framework

Maintain IGF’s deliberative mandate while creating better conveyor belt mechanisms to decision-making processes

Integrate WSIS Plus 20 and GDC implementation to avoid duplication while respecting different stakeholder participation models

Strengthen human rights language across WSIS architecture while maintaining technology-agnostic approach of action lines

Make IGF permanent while allowing for mandate evolution and formal institutionalization process in 2026

Balance intergovernmental decision-making needs with multi-stakeholder input through better coordination mechanisms

Address AI governance through existing WSIS action lines rather than creating separate parallel processes

Enhance Global South participation through digital technologies and remote engagement while maintaining in-person representation

What I want to say is that we completely agree that the existing action lines in WSIS Tunis are flexible enough to encompass new challenges. And rather than introducing new action lines or deleting existing ones, updates should be made to the current implementation architecture… But what is critical, I think, is that the architectural gaps in the first place also arise because of one Achilles heel, which is the absence of the significance in all these documents around public financing.

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Reason

This comment is insightful because it reframes the entire discussion from structural changes to implementation gaps, identifying public financing as the root cause of architectural failures. It shifts focus from what needs to be changed to why current structures aren’t working effectively.

Impact

This comment established a foundational perspective that influenced subsequent speakers to focus on implementation rather than wholesale restructuring. It introduced the critical lens of financing constraints that other panelists referenced throughout the discussion.

The WSIS architecture provides a unique and inclusive distributed governance model… The most important question we need to ask ourselves is whether we have been using it effectively… we have a toolbox, but are we really using all of the tools?

Speaker

Maria Fernanda Garza

Reason

This metaphor fundamentally reframed the problem from ‘what’s wrong with our tools’ to ‘are we using our tools properly.’ It’s a paradigm shift that suggests the issue isn’t the framework itself but our utilization of it.

Impact

This toolbox metaphor became a recurring reference point that shifted the conversation toward optimization rather than replacement. It influenced other speakers to focus on better coordination and implementation of existing mechanisms.

First is deliberation versus decision-making. IGF by mandate is a non-binding, deliberative structure… Unfortunately also, limited by its design, a lot of the great IGF discussions and outcomes do not necessarily land in decision-making fora… Structurally, it seems a conveyor belt of some sorts needs to exist between IGF and the larger WSIS infrastructure.

Speaker

Min Jiang

Reason

This comment identified a fundamental structural flaw in the current system – the disconnect between discussion and action. The ‘conveyor belt’ metaphor provided a concrete visualization of what’s missing in the architecture.

Impact

This observation sparked multiple responses from other panelists about institutionalizing IGF outcomes and creating better linkages between forums. It became a central theme that several speakers built upon, particularly regarding IGF’s future role.

As you see with the yellow in the bottom, most of the countries, and mostly of the South, cannot participate in all of them, or even in some of them. So this raises the situation that… we cannot have too many of them. Because otherwise, it’s impossible, especially for a developing country, to be in all of them.

Speaker

Juan Fernandez

Reason

Using visual evidence to demonstrate the participation gap, this comment provided concrete proof of exclusion in global digital governance. It moved the discussion from abstract concepts of inclusion to tangible evidence of systemic barriers.

Impact

This visual demonstration of exclusion reinforced the urgency around coordination and integration themes. It provided empirical backing for arguments about avoiding duplication and strengthening existing mechanisms rather than creating new ones.

IGF by mandate is a non-binding, deliberative structure under the auspice of UN that allows critical issues of Internet governance or digital governance to emerge from the confluence of diverse communities… As Vint Cerf says… ‘IGF may not be the place to solve the problem, but it’s certainly the place to frame the problem.’

Speaker

Juan Fernandez (quoting Vint Cerf)

Reason

This comment crystallized IGF’s unique value proposition in a memorable way, clarifying its role as an agenda-setter rather than decision-maker. It provided conceptual clarity about IGF’s purpose within the broader ecosystem.

Impact

This framing helped other speakers articulate how IGF fits into the larger architecture and influenced discussions about how to better connect IGF’s agenda-setting function to decision-making processes.

I strongly believe that 2026, with an impetus coming from the WSIS plus 20 review, should be about what is and should be the evolution and the revision of the mandate of the IGF to make it formally what it is supposed to be… And second, how to institutionalize it more coherently in a charter of sorts that establishes the different powers and capacities of the existing building blocks that we have.

Speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

Reason

This comment introduced a strategic timeline and concrete next steps, moving beyond the immediate WSIS+20 review to envision a structured evolution process. It provided actionable direction for long-term institutional development.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion toward concrete implementation timelines and formal institutionalization processes. It influenced other speakers to think beyond the December 2025 deadline toward longer-term structural improvements.

So for instance, in the WHO, there have been private philanthropists who have completely defined what illnesses should actually be prioritized in the world… So the public health of the digital certainly depends on the agenda to be set through democratic processes where people’s interest is put ahead.

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Reason

This analogy to WHO governance provided a powerful cautionary example about private influence in global governance, introducing critical questions about democratic legitimacy in digital governance structures.

Impact

This comment introduced a note of caution about multi-stakeholder participation, prompting clarification from the moderator and adding complexity to discussions about inclusion and representation in governance structures.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing several crucial frameworks: the shift from structural overhaul to implementation optimization (Gurumurthy’s financing focus and Garza’s toolbox metaphor), the identification of critical gaps in the deliberation-to-decision pipeline (Min’s conveyor belt concept), and the provision of concrete evidence for systemic exclusion (Juan’s visual demonstration). The discussion evolved from abstract policy concepts to concrete implementation challenges, with speakers building on each other’s frameworks to develop a more nuanced understanding of how to strengthen existing mechanisms rather than replace them. The comments also introduced important tensions around democratic legitimacy and private influence that added depth to the conversation about multi-stakeholder governance. Overall, these interventions transformed what could have been a routine policy discussion into a strategic conversation about institutional evolution and democratic governance in the digital age.

How can we better calculate and measure progress across WSIS action lines and GDC tracks, and what identified metrics should be used to hold governments accountable?

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Explanation

This is essential for creating accountability mechanisms and understanding what constitutes progress from the perspective of inclusion, diversity, and equity in the post-WSIS Plus 20 review process.

How can a joint implementation roadmap between WSIS Plus 20 and GDC be operationalized in practice to avoid duplication and resource strain?

Speaker

Anna Osserling

Explanation

While the principle is supported, there’s a need for concrete details on how this integration would work practically to streamline multiple ongoing processes.

How can we create better institutional linkages and coordination between IGF, CSTD, WSIS Forum, and UN General Assembly to avoid duplication?

Speaker

Juan Fernandez

Explanation

There’s a need for more fluid, substantive linkages beyond existing mechanisms like UNGIS to ensure effective coordination across the WSIS architecture.

How can we create a conveyor belt mechanism to transmit IGF outcomes more effectively into decision-making processes at UN, regional, and national levels?

Speaker

Min Jiang

Explanation

The gap between IGF’s deliberative nature and actual decision-making forums needs to be bridged to make IGF discussions more impactful.

How can we design work programs within policy pillars (internet infrastructure governance, digital public infrastructure, data governance, AI, digital literacy) to create more structured and productive outcomes?

Speaker

Olaf Kolfmann

Explanation

This would help organize policy topics by maturity level and create continuity in IGF work, potentially leading to more concrete outcomes.

How should the IGF’s mandate be revised and institutionalized more formally after 20 years of operation?

Speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

Explanation

There’s a need for a comprehensive review of IGF’s role and formal institutionalization, similar to what was achieved with the Working Group on Internet Governance in 2004-2005.

How can we ensure meaningful participation from developing country civil society and governments in standard-setting processes, particularly for AI?

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Explanation

Current standard-setting activities lack representation from the Global South, which could undermine the robustness of the post-WSIS Plus 20 review process.

How can we address the gaps in stakeholder participation levels and ensure more balanced representation across all stakeholder groups in IGF sessions?

Speaker

Bruna (audience member)

Explanation

There are observable gaps in participation, such as lack of civil society perspectives in relevant sessions, that need systematic addressing.

How can we balance Global North and Global South perspectives in AI governance integration within the WSIS framework?

Speaker

Bruna (audience member)

Explanation

It’s important to ensure that AI governance doesn’t become dominated by Global North perspectives and includes diverse approaches from different regions.

How can we engage technology companies more effectively at the global level to forward digital governance goals?

Speaker

Oktavian Šofranski

Explanation

There’s a need to explore better mechanisms for engaging the business community in building digital governance architecture beyond existing partnerships.

Should the Internet Governance Forum be renamed to reflect its broader digital governance scope, and what would be the implications of such a change?

Speaker

Kosi (audience member) and others

Explanation

The IGF now addresses many issues beyond internet governance, raising questions about whether the name should reflect this broader scope.

How can we ensure that private interests don’t inappropriately influence agenda-setting in intergovernmental spaces like CSTD while maintaining multi-stakeholder principles?

Speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

Explanation

There are concerns about how to balance multi-stakeholder participation with ensuring that public interest remains the priority in democratic processes.

How can online environments and digital technologies be leveraged to facilitate more inclusive participation from marginalized groups in global governance processes?

Speaker

Eugenio V. Garcia

Explanation

This explores practical solutions for including groups like indigenous peoples, women, youth, and persons with disabilities who may not be able to participate physically in global forums.

Summary

This workshop focused on developing action-oriented solutions to strengthen the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), featuring perspectives from various stakeholders including government, technical community, and youth representatives. The discussion was moderated by Everton Teles Rodriguez from NIC.br and included speakers from Canada, North Macedonia, and Ethiopia, both in-person and remote participants.

Allison O’Beirne from the Government of Canada emphasized three key recommendations: making the IGF mandate permanent to allow for more strategic long-term planning, better capturing and disseminating outcomes from national and regional initiatives (NRIs), and making the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) more inclusive with stronger representation from emerging economies and marginalized communities. She stressed that permanence would signal global confidence in the IGF and enable more agile responses to technological advances.

Marko Paloski, representing the youth perspective from North Macedonia, highlighted the critical importance of meaningful youth engagement beyond mere participation. He argued that young people bring fresh perspectives as digital natives who are not just users but also content creators, developers, and community builders. He emphasized that youth engagement helps the IGF stay relevant and adapt faster to technological changes.

Saba Tiku Beyene, coordinator of the Ethiopia Youth IGF and former MAG member, proposed three ways to improve accessibility and inclusivity: ensuring sessions are accessible through real-time captioning and multilingual support including widely-spoken regional languages, rethinking support for participants from underserved regions through long-term engagement and mentorship rather than one-time fellowships, and encouraging intergenerational dialogue and cross-regional learning experiences.

Byron Holland from the Canadian Internet Registration Authority addressed financial sustainability, proposing three key strategies: providing clearer and more accessible information about IGF costs and funding, diversifying the funding base across all stakeholder groups rather than relying on limited sources, and encouraging longer-term funding commitments such as five-year pledges to enable better planning and innovation. He emphasized that in a multistakeholder environment, funding should also be multistakeholder to avoid over-influence by any single group.

The discussion included interactive polling where participants ranked various proposed actions, with making the IGF permanent receiving the strongest support. Participants also emphasized the importance of connecting national and regional initiatives more effectively to the global IGF process and ensuring that private sector engagement is strengthened. The workshop concluded with recognition that strengthening the IGF requires coordinated action across multiple dimensions including governance, inclusivity, and financial sustainability to ensure its continued relevance in the evolving digital policy landscape.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Making the IGF Mandate Permanent**: Discussion focused on transitioning the Internet Governance Forum from its current renewable mandate structure to a permanent one, which would allow for more strategic long-term planning and send a strong signal of global multi-stakeholder confidence in the forum.

– **Youth Engagement and Inclusivity**: Extensive conversation about meaningful youth participation in IGF processes, emphasizing that young people bring fresh perspectives as digital natives who are not just users but also content creators, developers, and community builders in the digital space.

– **Financial Sustainability and Diversification**: Detailed examination of funding challenges facing the IGF, with proposals for diversifying funding sources beyond current structures, encouraging long-term financial commitments (like 5-year pledges), and improving transparency in financial reporting.

– **Strengthening National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs)**: Discussion of better integrating local and regional IGF initiatives with the global forum through improved communication channels, ensuring diverse regional perspectives feed into global agenda-setting, and using NRIs as entry points for broader participation.

– **Accessibility and Multilingual Support**: Conversation about expanding language accessibility beyond the six UN languages to include widely-spoken regional languages, improving real-time captioning, and creating more inclusive participation mechanisms for underserved regions.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to develop action-oriented solutions to strengthen the Internet Governance Forum in preparation for upcoming reviews (WSIS+20 and GDC implementation), focusing on practical improvements to mandate, funding, inclusivity, and operational effectiveness while preserving the IGF’s core value as an open multi-stakeholder dialogue platform.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with participants demonstrating deep commitment to the IGF’s mission while acknowledging current limitations. The atmosphere was solution-focused rather than critical, with speakers building on each other’s ideas and showing genuine enthusiasm for improvement. The tone remained consistently professional and forward-looking, with participants expressing optimism about the IGF’s potential while being realistic about implementation challenges, particularly regarding funding and structural reforms.

Speakers

– **Everton Teles Rodriguez** – Responsible for TLD affairs at NIC.br, Workshop moderator

– **Byron Holland** – President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA)

– **Allison O’Beirne** – Director of International Telecommunications and Internet Policy at the Government of Canada

– **Marko Paloski** – System Engineer at NetCetera and Coordinator of IGF North Macedonia Initiative, member of the steering committee for Eastern Europe in the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (participated remotely)

– **Saba Tiku Beyene** – Coordinator of the Ethiopia Youth IGF, former MAG member, Junior Advisor on AI at GIZ at the African Union

– **Ellen Taylor** – Policy Analyst of Internet Governance at the Government of Canada, Online moderator

– **Jordan Carter** – Works for the .au domain administration

– **Bertrand de la Chapelle** – Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network

**Additional speakers:**

– **Mark Cavell** – Participated via online chat/comments

# Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum: A Comprehensive Workshop Report

## Introduction and Context

This workshop (Workshop 173), moderated by Everton Teles Rodriguez from NIC.br, brought together diverse stakeholders to develop action-oriented solutions for strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The discussion featured perspectives from government representatives, technical community leaders, and youth advocates, both in-person in Norway and participating remotely. The timing of this workshop was particularly significant, occurring in preparation for upcoming reviews including WSIS+20 and Global Digital Compact (GDC) implementation, making the development of concrete recommendations for IGF improvement both timely and crucial.

The workshop maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with participants demonstrating deep commitment to the IGF’s mission whilst acknowledging current limitations. Rather than focusing on criticism, the atmosphere remained solution-focused, with speakers building upon each other’s ideas and expressing genuine enthusiasm for improvement. This forward-looking approach created an environment where participants could be both optimistic about the IGF’s potential and realistic about implementation challenges, particularly regarding funding and structural reforms.

*Note: The transcript appears to end abruptly with technical issues, cutting off mid-sentence during Allison O’Beirne’s concluding remarks. This summary reflects the portion of the workshop that was successfully recorded.*

## Key Recommendations and Proposals

### Making the IGF Mandate Permanent

Allison O’Beirne from the Government of Canada presented one of the most significant structural recommendations: transitioning the IGF from its current renewable mandate structure to a permanent one. She argued that this change would enable more strategic long-term planning and send a strong signal of global multi-stakeholder confidence in the forum. O’Beirne emphasized that permanence would allow the IGF to respond more agilely to technological advances and provide the stability necessary for sustained engagement from all stakeholder groups.

Crucially, O’Beirne highlighted that the IGF’s non-decisional nature represents a core strength rather than a weakness. She explained that this characteristic allows participants to approach discussions in a spirit of openness and collaboration, noting that government representatives, in particular, often arrive at other forums with predetermined positions. The IGF’s collaborative environment, free from the pressure to negotiate outcome documents, enables genuine learning and listening amongst stakeholders.

However, this recommendation encountered some complexity when Bertrand de la Chapelle, Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network, argued that comprehensive IGF reform could not be adequately addressed within the December WSIS+20 timeline. De la Chapelle advocated for a proper multi-stakeholder discussion in 2026 to address IGF evolution, suggesting that rushing changes through the WSIS review process might not serve the forum’s long-term interests.

### Strengthening National and Regional Initiatives Integration

A significant theme throughout the discussion was the need to better integrate National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) – local and regional IGF processes – with the global IGF process. O’Beirne proposed developing formal mechanisms to channel NRI inputs into global IGF agenda-setting, arguing that this would strengthen multi-stakeholder representation and ensure that grassroots perspectives inform global discussions.

Jordan Carter, who works for the .au domain administration, offered a concrete proposal to address this disconnect. He suggested that appointees to the IGF’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) – the body that helps plan the annual IGF – should be required to be active in their NRI communities as a condition of appointment. This approach would help connect grassroots internet governance issues with global decision-making processes and ensure that MAG members remain sensitized to local needs and perspectives.

Saba Tiku Beyene, coordinator of the Ethiopia Youth IGF and former MAG member, reinforced this theme by proposing that NRIs should serve as entry points to the global IGF and be recognized as spaces where new leaders are developed. She emphasized the importance of creating pathways for sustained engagement that address structural barriers preventing meaningful long-term participation in IGF processes.

### Meaningful Youth Engagement

The discussion of youth participation revealed sophisticated thinking about the difference between tokenistic involvement and meaningful engagement. Marko Paloski, representing the youth perspective from North Macedonia and participating remotely, made a crucial distinction: “one thing is youth involvement and one thing is youth engagement because we have seen a lot of other conferences and stuff that they have youth and the participation but it’s not on the same level as engagement.”

Paloski argued that young people bring fresh perspectives as digital natives who are not merely users but also content creators, developers, and community builders. He emphasized that youth deserve representation at decision-making tables because they offer different viewpoints from traditional users and have first-hand experience growing up with technology. This framing moved the conversation beyond simply including youth to understanding their substantive contributions to internet governance discussions.

Beyene supported this perspective by proposing intergenerational dialogue and cross-regional learning opportunities to integrate youth voices into IGF agenda-setting. She advocated for transforming fellowship programmes from one-time experiences to long-term engagement opportunities with mentorship, recognizing that meaningful participation requires sustained support and development rather than brief exposure to IGF processes.

### Financial Sustainability and Diversification

Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), addressed one of the IGF’s most persistent challenges: financial sustainability. He proposed three key strategies to strengthen the IGF’s funding base whilst preserving its multi-stakeholder character.

First, Holland called for clearer and more accessible information about IGF costs and funding flows across the entire ecosystem. He noted that the lack of transparent financial reporting makes it difficult for potential contributors to understand where their support would be most valuable and how it would be utilized. This transparency would support strategic engagement and help identify specific funding gaps.

Second, he advocated for diversifying the funding base across all stakeholder groups rather than relying on limited sources. Holland made a sophisticated argument connecting financial diversity to institutional values, arguing that in a multi-stakeholder forum, funding should also be multi-stakeholder to prevent over-influence by any single group whilst ensuring broad community investment.

Third, Holland proposed encouraging longer-term funding commitments, such as five-year pledges, to enable better planning and innovation. These commitments would signal community investment in the IGF’s future whilst providing the stability necessary for strategic development and programme innovation. He introduced the principle of “if we can, we should” regarding stakeholder contributions.

Holland also highlighted the concerning decline in private sector participation, noting that their re-engagement is crucial for both funding diversification and maintaining the IGF’s relevance to all stakeholder communities.

### Accessibility and Inclusivity Improvements

Beyene presented comprehensive recommendations for improving accessibility and inclusivity within IGF processes. She proposed three key areas for development: technical accessibility improvements, fellowship programme reform, and enhanced representation mechanisms.

For technical accessibility, Beyene advocated for real-time captioning and live translations extending beyond the six UN languages to include widely spoken regional languages. She specifically mentioned languages like Yoruba, noting that true inclusivity requires considering languages spoken by large populations rather than limiting translation services to official UN languages, despite acknowledging the financial constraints this would create.

Regarding fellowship programmes, Beyene argued for a fundamental shift from one-time experiences to long-term engagement with mentorship and post-engagement opportunities. This approach would address the current limitation where participants receive brief exposure to IGF processes but lack ongoing support to maintain their engagement or develop their contributions to internet governance discussions.

O’Beirne reinforced the inclusivity theme by calling for a more inclusive MAG with better representation from emerging economies, the Global South, and marginalized communities.

## Interactive Elements and Community Input

The workshop included multiple interactive Mentimeter polls facilitated by Ellen Taylor, who also monitored online interactions. Participants ranked various proposed actions across different categories, with making the IGF permanent receiving strong support among the options presented. The polling provided valuable insight into community priorities and helped validate the recommendations being discussed.

Mark Cavell participated through online comments, with Ellen reading his question about whether supplementary UN budget provision might enhance confidence amongst other potential investors and promote wider government participation. This input explored whether UN baseline funding could serve as a catalyst for attracting additional diverse funding sources and broader government engagement.

The moderator, Everton Teles Rodriguez, facilitated the discussion and managed the 60-minute time constraint, ensuring all speakers had opportunities to contribute their perspectives.

## Areas of Consensus and Emerging Themes

### Strong Consensus Areas

The discussion revealed remarkable consensus on several fundamental issues. Participants demonstrated strong agreement on the need for diversified funding from multiple stakeholder groups, with both Holland and O’Beirne emphasizing that sustainable funding must come from diverse sources including UN baseline funding, government support, and multi-stakeholder contributions.

There was also clear consensus on the need for better integration of National and Regional Initiatives with global IGF processes. O’Beirne, Carter, and Beyene all recognized that NRIs are valuable but currently underutilized, requiring better mechanisms to connect grassroots perspectives with global agenda-setting and leadership development.

Regarding youth engagement, Paloski, Beyene, and other participants agreed that meaningful participation requires moving beyond token involvement to recognize youth as active contributors rather than passive users.

Perhaps most significantly, speakers converged on preferring multi-stakeholder collaborative approaches over traditional intergovernmental processes, emphasizing the value of the IGF’s unique non-decisional character.

### Areas of Disagreement

The primary disagreements centered on timing and process rather than fundamental objectives. O’Beirne advocated for making the IGF mandate permanent through direct action, whilst de la Chapelle argued that comprehensive IGF reform could not be achieved by the December WSIS+20 deadline and should be properly discussed in a multi-stakeholder process in 2026.

Similarly, Carter suggested pursuing improvements through administrative changes and collaborative approaches, whilst de la Chapelle focused on establishing the proper framework and timeline for comprehensive mandate discussion.

## Unresolved Issues and Future Considerations

Despite the productive discussion, several significant issues remained unresolved. The question of how to re-engage private sector participation that has declined over the years requires further attention, as does the fundamental question of where to anchor discussions on IGF evolution—whether in the UN, Committee on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), or other structures.

The balance between pursuing IGF improvements through the WSIS+20 review versus administrative and collaborative means remains unclear, as does the question of how to balance host country burden with ensuring IGF accessibility for countries with varying capacities.

Participants identified the need for specific mechanisms to capture and disseminate outcomes from National and Regional Initiatives, as well as methods for measuring and reporting on the effectiveness of fellowship programmes and long-term engagement initiatives.

## Conclusion

This workshop demonstrated both the IGF community’s maturity in understanding current challenges and its commitment to collaborative solutions. The high level of consensus on fundamental issues, combined with healthy debate about implementation approaches, suggests strong potential for meaningful progress in strengthening the IGF.

The discussion revealed that strengthening the IGF requires coordinated action across multiple dimensions: governance structures, inclusivity mechanisms, financial sustainability, and operational effectiveness. Participants recognized that these elements are interconnected and that improvements in one area can support progress in others.

Most significantly, the workshop reinforced that the IGF’s core value as an open multi-stakeholder dialogue platform should be preserved whilst addressing practical challenges around mandate, funding, and inclusivity. The path forward appears to involve both immediate operational improvements and longer-term structural discussions, with the community demonstrating readiness to engage in both tracks simultaneously.

*Note: Due to the incomplete transcript ending during Allison O’Beirne’s concluding remarks, some speakers’ final thoughts and potential additional recommendations may not be reflected in this summary. The workshop may have continued beyond what was successfully recorded.*

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Okay, so good afternoon for those joining us in person here in Norway, and good time of the day for those who are watching us remotely or in any time in the future. I’m Everton Teles Rodriguez Teles Rodriguez, responsible for TLD affairs at NIC.br, and I have the pleasure of being the moderator for the workshop 173, Action-Oriented Solutions to Strengthen the IGF. As we only have 60 minutes, I’ll be very brief in my introduction, but I couldn’t be more grateful to the organizers of this session, especially to Ellen Taylor, which is the Policy Analyst of Internet Governance at IZ, the Government of Canada, who will also be moderating our online interactions. So I also would like to thank the local host, and especially also the IGF Secretariat and the MAG, who have worked under extremely challenging conditions to put up this event. So this edition is a living proof of the resilience of the IGF and of the strength of the global multistakeholder community, which supports the IGF. Our workshop will have two parts. For the first half of the session, speakers will provide their regional and stakeholder perspectives on their ideas and best multistakeholder engagement practices that can be used to strengthen the IGF. Then our workshop will become interactive in the second part of the session, as speakers and the audience members will be invited to engage in a creative brainstorming to develop action-oriented solutions to strengthen the IGF and support GDC and WSIS plus 20 output implementation. So to discuss that, I have the pleasure to have here with me Byron Holland, which is the President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, CIRA. I have here also Alessandro O’Beirne, Director of International Telecommunications and Internet Policy at the Government of Canada. Joining us remotely we have Marko Paloski, System Engineer at NetCetera and Coordinator of IGF North Macedonia Initiative. He’s joining us remotely online and here with us at the table we have Saba Tiku Beyene, Coordinator of the Ethiopia Youth IGF. She’s also a former MAG member and currently she serves as a Junior Advisor on AI at GIZ at the African Union. So, to start our discussion today, I would like to invite Alison to talk a little bit about the IGF mandate and permanence. So, Alison, what are some actions that we can take to strengthen the mandate of the IGF without losing its value as a key stakeholder forum for open discussion on Internet governance? Thanks for joining us.

Allison O’Beirne: Thanks, Everton Teles Rodriguez. Thank you for the question, it’s much appreciated. Hello everyone, thank you so much for joining the panel today. I’m very excited to be here and to be able to speak a little bit about some of the proposals from our various panelists about how to improve the IGF and how to really strengthen it as a forum for multi-stakeholder discussion. So, when we talk about strengthening the mandate of the IGF, I think the first thing that we want to recognize is that we’re talking about strengthening a mandate that has already really delivered enormously and is very well regarded, particularly by those who are kind of involved and who have attended the event. So, we’re looking at bringing success to something that’s already successful, looking at making a good thing even greater. When we’re starting from that premise, I think the first thing that we have to ask ourselves is what are the elements that make the IGF successful now? What are currently the things that really bring positivity to the forum? I think, first of all, it’s marvelous that it’s a forum for all stakeholders to come together and discuss in a very open manner the challenges that they’re facing, whether those are political, whether those are technical, whether those are policy changes, policy challenges that are… really able to be discussed in a venue that is open to a number of different viewpoints and a number of different types of collaboration and discussion as well. I think IGF’s non-decisional nature is also crucial to its success. It allows folks to come to the table in a spirit of openness and collaboration. I know from the government perspective particularly, we have a tendency to show up at some events with our positions all set and our decisions already made, and coming to IGF in a space where we’re not negotiating an outcomes document allows us to come in a spirit of collaboration and a spirit of learning and listening as well, which is really an element of IGF success. I would say that the last thing that’s really incredible to me about IGF is the strength of its national and regional initiatives. Those initiatives really make the IGF into a truly global ecosystem and really bring the community into the IGF space and vice versa. So with that foundation of those kind of strengths of the IGF already, I think recommendations then can focus on how to strengthen those pieces as well. The first recommendation that our team would have on the Government of Canada side is about the IGF mandate and just to make it permanent. I think folks are aware that the IGF, since it was established, was really renewed on an ongoing basis, which is good to have that kind of consistent demonstration of the value of it and of the value to stakeholders, but having a permanent mandate really allows the IGF to advance the way that it’s working in an increasingly strategic and an increasingly geopolitical space like digital policy. Having a permanent mandate not only sends that strong signal of the global multi-stakeholder confidence in IGF, it also allows the IGF itself to be more agile and more strategic in the way that it works, to think longer term, not to be kind of constantly chasing the next mandate, but instead to know that there is going to be this kind of permanence to it allows it to be better responsive and more thoughtfully responsive to advances in technology, to advances in stakeholder needs as well. I know Byron’s going to speak a little later to the financial aspects of that, so like usual as a government I will ask somebody else to figure out the financials for me. something that we can talk a little bit more about how that permanence can have a financial backing as well. The second recommendation that we would have is related back to the the national and regional initiatives and it’s really just about ensuring that we capture and disseminate the outcomes of those national and regional initiatives in a more kind of targeted and dedicated way. National and regional initiatives as I said really bring the kind of multi-stakeholder of nature of IGF into our communities and allow us to reflect the numerous different cultural socio-economic contexts that folks are working in as they’re thinking about digital and government and internet policies. But too often we’re finding that the really valuable insights that come from national and regional initiatives get communicated back to the IGF but often in a way that is siloed one region from the other and also siloed from the kind of central program of IGF. I think some kind of formal mechanism for channeling the inputs from those regional initiatives into the agenda setting for the broader IGF itself could really strengthen not only those regional initiatives and allow them to have a kind of raison d’etre and a way to feed into the IGF agenda, it also strengthens IGF itself again reflecting back to the multi-stakeholder nature. The third recommendation we would have is related to the IGF multi-stakeholder advisory group. I think a crucial group for setting the agenda here and making sure that it really reflects our multi-stakeholder values. The multi-stakeholder advisory group, the MAG, really plays a role in shaping the IGF’s agenda every year and I think there are a number of ways that we can ensure that as the IGF goes forward, if we’re able to secure a permanent mandate for it, that the MAG can continue to play that role in really defining the agenda for IGF. We can make the MAG more inclusive, ensure that voices from emerging economies from the global south are in the room and are as part of the discussion about the agenda setting and also voices from marginalized communities, whether it’s Indigenous folks, whether it’s women, whether it’s youth, are well represented within that group and feel that they have the ability to kind of…

Everton Teles Rodriguez: comprehensive set of recommendations and of course that we as a community as you said so all of us here in the room and those joining remotely we are just aiming at improving the IGF so of course that this is a process that has been taking place for many for two decades now and the internet is still being built by every single stakeholder and being built everywhere so every single input from those who have been joining the internet governance and the building of the internet for so long are all invited to keep improving not only the internet itself but also the IGF so thank you very much Alison for your comments now we are going to our second contribution comes from Marco so Marco I hope you’re able to join us here remotely I hope you’re hearing hearing me and listening to the conversation so as a young leader in the technical community as well as a member of the steering committee for Eastern Europe in the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance. Why is it meaningful youth engagement in spaces such as the IGF important and how do you think the engagement of young leaders in the IGF strengthen youth stakeholder internet governance and dialogue? Thanks for joining us. Just checking Marko. So let’s see. Can you just check if he can unmute himself? In the meantime so I will go to our next presenter in this while Marko can join us. So please Saba let’s go to our next question. So based on your previous experience. Oh right so he joined us just because it’s hard for us to listen and to listen to ourselves as well speaking but so if going back to Marko then then I’ll go to Saba. Marko hope you have heard the question?

Marko Paloski: Can you just repeat it once more?

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Of course. So you’re a young leader in the technical community as well as a member of the steering committee for Eastern Europe in the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance. So why is a meaningful youth engagement in spaces such as the IGF important and how do you think that the engagement of young leaders in the IGF strengthen youth stakeholder internet governance and dialogue? Thanks for joining us.

Marko Paloski: Yes thank you very much for the question and I want first to apologize for not being there. Last week I had some personal stuff and I needed to cancel everything but I should have been here in person. Yes thank you very much for the question. I think it’s a crucial one for the youth involvement and engagement. I mean not just involvement because there is I want also to point out that one thing is youth involvement and one thing is youth engagement because we have seen a lot of other how can I say conferences and stuff that they have youth and the participation but it’s It’s not on the same level as engagement. And I would add here that in the recent years, IGF was doing a lot to engage the youth. But of course, there are still more things to do. The most important thing that I will point out that why is youth engagement important for the IGF, for the mandate and for everything, I mean, in crucial stuff, is because it gives a new perspective. It brings also the youths which are growing up in the digital world. I mean, whenever you are youth in 15 years now, or 18 years, or 30 years, you somehow raised up with some kind of sort of technology and you’re growing up with the technology. So I would say it’s bringing the stuff, the experience, the issues, and all the stuff that youth are experiencing during these periods of their life. And it’s very important because the youths are having those, how can I say, first things experience. I will share a little thing that not every youth is digital literacy, but they have experience with the technology. And that makes very much difference because sometimes when you don’t have the knowledge or you didn’t go to those kind of stuff, maybe you think or see on a different way because you weren’t taught. You just click it, you scroll it, and you know on your way, which I don’t say that it’s wrong or right, but it’s good to have those perspective also on the table at the IGF. Another thing is that when we see youths, we don’t need to see them as just the users because currently in these days, they are also doing content creation. They are doing the developing, researching, community buildings. We can see a lot. I have a nephew that he is and his friends are doing YouTube and TikTok videos. Those people, I wouldn’t say they are influencers, but those people, those kids or youths create content online. So they are not just the users in this time that we are now especially living. So they are more than just the users. And I think it’s very much important to bring them also. to the table, and of course youth engagement to invite them to IGF and engage. Another thing that I would point out is that IGF in its core is a multi-stakeholder model, so it’s very important to also bring the youths, it will bring a balance in the whole model of the IGF. And what I also wanted to point out is that last year it was created a dynamic coalition on teens. What this means is that even the youth as a category is not enough to cover all the youths or maybe the needs of the youths. So that’s another point that it’s very crucial the youths to be involved because we can see now the age difference, for example, when we talk about youths 16, how they see and how they are using technology with, for example, me, I am currently 30. So that’s totally different point of views and totally different experiences. So I would say that youths are, if you ask me, it’s a must to be included in this, especially when it’s coming to the technology. And finally, I would say that by engaging them, the IGF can stay more relevant, can adapt faster and build this trust across different age groups, because how the technology is changing and the youths are more and more adapting. I mean, in the past, it was not, how can I say, usual for you to change, I don’t know, application or maybe even the device for a few years. I mean, until it’s broken or something doesn’t work, you change it. Now, in two or three years, we are changing the technology and how the application and the whole experience is going. I would point out again, Facebook is not the same like it was, I don’t know, even one year ago and not more than, I would say, more than the years. So I would say the youths are crucial part to be engaged. and be taken place on the table with the other seniors or other people that are on the IGF to discuss those issues and to bring some, I would say, maybe fresh perspective or different perspective from the people. I think I covered the question.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you very much Marko and I just would like to emphasize how important the youth initiatives are. We have several of them all over the world, some of them are global, some of them are regional, some of them can be found locally and I really would like to urge those who would like to join just to look for one of those initiatives which can be found all over the world and that will help shaping the internet of today and tomorrow. So the internet is not a finished product, so we all have something to contribute and so thanks also to the youth program where we’re seeing the next generations of internet developers, leaders, users as well and everything related to the usage and to the present and future of the internet on youth representatives. Thank you very much for your participation Marko and stay tuned. So going to our next presenter Saba. Thank you very much Saba for joining us and based on your previous experiences on the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group, the MAG, as well as your experience as the coordinator of the Ethiopian Youth IGF, do you have three ways or three suggestions in which we can improve especially accessibility and inclusivity of the global IGF? So are there any other elements that we should consider when we are discussing this issue?

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much for the question and it’s a pleasure to be here today. So based on my experience within the IGF ecosystem, it’s very much through that accessibility and Inclusion are the core pillars of the IGF. And in order to improve these two areas, it’s very much crucial for the future of the IGF as well. The first action is to ensure that the IGF sessions are accessible and this means, for example, using real-time captioning which we already have, live translations into multiple languages and here we also do have the live translation to six UN languages which is very much appreciated. But sometimes you also need to consider the languages being spoken by the majority of the people. For instance, in Africa, Yoruba language is one of the most widely spoken language being used by the majority of people, around 40 to 50 million. And in order to consider this, of course, we know sometimes the financial constraint is the issue. But we need to accommodate such diversity as well as making sure that it is a multilingual space. And second way is that we need to rethink how we support participants from underserved regions. For instance, when we talk about fellowships, they do not have to be a one-time experience but we need to build a long-term engagement, provide mentorship programs and also to give them post-engagement opportunities as well. And for this, for instance, we can take a look on how, you know, this can be integrated into the NRS ecosystem and this is engaging within the youths, IGFs, national IGFs, or regional IGFs and continue their engagement at the grassroots level. And you also need to see ways to have these reporting mechanisms in such cases in order to analyze their participation with that specific fellowship or other programs or opportunities within the IGF ecosystem. And my third recommendation would be inclusion. And this is, you know, from the overall youth perspective, should be very much encouraged. For instance, to have an intergenerational dialogue, for example, where the youth can have a conversation or an exchange or to have an experience sharing with policymakers. or having access to peer learning process or a cross-regional learning process as well. And here, for instance, I was one of the ISOCU’s ambassadors, and the peer learning process is very much appreciated. For example, U’s ambassador from the African region is sent to Europe to attend the EuroDIG, and U’s ambassador from the Asia-Pacific region was sent to Africa to attend African IGF. So these kind of pipelines, they need to be encouraged where I learn something different or learn from other experience of the other regions within the IGF ecosystem. And also again, speaking from the U’s perspective, we should also encourage U’s live sessions and have more fresh voices and ideas in order to be integrated into the whole IGF agenda. And one of the additional elements I can say to be considered when talking about these issues is we should see U’s IGFs and local initiatives as well as entry points into the global IGF. And these are not like a one-time event or an annual event, but rather they are one of the most powerful spaces where we can generate or where new leaders are being born. And so linking them to the global processes and ensure that the IGF stays relevant as well as very dynamic. And so generally speaking, if we really want the IGF to be fit for the future, accessibility and inclusion are one of the most important or the most core pillars. Thank you very much.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you, Saba. And there is this interesting connection of what you were talking and then what Alison mentioned about the role of NRIs, because for example, it happens the same in Brazil. We have a… We have a huge community related to internet governance. Our Internet Governance Forum takes place mostly in Portuguese, which is the language of Brazil. And then we have a community, of course, that we may have some of them, some of the people who attend the Brazilian IGF and who also attend the global IGF, but that’s not a common link everywhere. So if you just speak the language of your country and then you move to the same discussion, which you’re already used to, but in a completely different language, that should be, of course, very much a question of a point of concern or a point of action of the whole community in order to provide the global IGF with the same level of discussions or to a great level of discussion as much as we have on national levels. So thank you very much. I saw this link between the two talks. Thank you very much. So going to now our next topic, our next presenter, which is last but not least, I should say, I would like to talk a little bit about financial sustainability, which is an ongoing issue for the IGF. So I would like to invite Byron. This has been a key topic in discussions about strengthening the IGF and especially pressing as we approach the WSIS Plus 20 review later this year, right after the IGF. So do you have any strategies or solutions that you have heard proposed to ensure that the IGF is financially sustainable in the long term? Thanks for joining us, Byron.

Byron Holland: Thanks for the question, Everton Teles Rodriguez. Like many people in this room, I wear a number of hats when I come to events like this, but today I’m definitely speaking. in my capacity as the CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority or CIRA. Most people will know us as the operator of the Canadian country code top level domain .ca, but we also serve as the secretariat for the Canadian Internet Governance Forum or the CIGF. What I would like to share with you today is some thoughts on money. That’s right, not internet governance, money. And what I’m going to suggest, it’s really not rocket science, but it is about the fuel to keep this, all of this, this entire enterprise of the IGF sustained and sustainable. And I’m sure many in this room and outside this room would agree, ensuring the long-term financial sustainability of the global IGF and the wider IGF ecosystem is essential if we’re to fully realize both its purpose and its value. Among other things, the IGF secretariat needs funding, not just to do these big events, but to engage its staff, to have staff, support meetings, and to communicate all of the messages and insights and information that come out of these IGF events. And this is no small feat, and it demands sustained and predictable resources. NRIs, too, require funding to convene events, foster local dialogues like we’ve just heard about, and feed national and regional perspectives into these global events. And today, I’d like to set out three key considerations, proposals that I believe are worthy of significant thought, and they relate to 1. Clearer and more accessible information on both funding and expenses related to the IGF 2. Diversification of IGF funding 3. Encouraging long-term financial commitments to the Forum So the first idea is to ensure that meaningful information about IGF costs and funding is clear, it’s accessible, it’s easy to consume, and it’s publicly available. From our vantage point, it’s not always easy to determine how much money flows into the IGF and its broader ecosystem, and what the associated costs are with the annual conference like this, the Secretariat, and the wider ecosystem’s initiatives and activities. And that’s not to say that important initiatives aren’t already underway. The IGF Support Association, or the IGFSA, for example, plays a valuable role in raising and distributing funding for IGF activities, including those regional and national initiatives and youth IGFs. It publishes annual reports and provides high-level information on projects funded by those associated allocations. But still, there is absolutely room for more complete and a more detailed picture of the financial landscape, one that draws from all the relevant sources, multiple sources, and shows how those resources are flowing across the IGF ecosystem. I think this would easily support more strategic engagement, enable stakeholders to identify key gaps, and strengthen efforts to sustain the process, all of these processes. and Marko Paloski, Saba Tiku Beyene. This approach reflects the Forum’s inclusive nature itself and its role as a key platform for dialogue on Internet governance and policy issues. And I think the diversity of funding sources will also help mitigate any risk of over-influence or capture by any one stakeholder group. We recognize, I certainly recognize, this is a challenging time for many in the community and that I’m very sensitive that different regions and stakeholders will have varying capacities to contribute. And naturally, those contributions should vary accordingly. You know, in my organization at CIRA, we often say, if we can, we should. And I think that that is a sentiment that is quite fitting here. It’s important to emphasize that this applies not only to global IGFs but to the wider ecosystem of national, regional and youth IGFs, the NRIs. And CIRA is certainly proud to serve both as the secretariat and the sponsor of the Canadian IGF, which plays, like many others, a key role in feeding Canadian perspectives into this event, into the global dialogue. And certainly, many of my CCTLD peers around the world also do the same in their respective countries. The third and final is building on ideas shared in ICANN’s I think there is a real opportunity, not just an opportunity, but a need to explore longer-term funding commitments. For example, 5-year pledges. If we had those, that would allow the IGF Secretariat to plan ahead, set priorities, and reduce the uncertainty of year-to-year funding cycles. Long-term support would also make it easier to pilot new initiatives in areas of emerging need, be they emerging technologies, continued capacity building, or other innovations. It would create space for experimentation and innovation. And importantly, it would signal to the broader community that the IGF is not just a forum worth preserving as it is, but one worth investing in, allowing to innovate for the long haul. So these reflections are, as I said, not rocket science. But if we advance these elements, clearer financial reporting, a broader diversity of funders, and some longer-term funding commitments, I’m confident that we can keep the IGF sustained, relevant, and innovating for many years to come. Thank you.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Byron. And this is a topic which, regardless of our views of the IGF and of our different experiences of the IGF, the financial sustainability is definitely key for making the whole process happening, regardless of where and when. So in order for it to take place once a year in all over the world with the national and regional initiatives, the global IGF and everything. So the predictability of contributions should be a key topic for discussion and has been a key topic. So thank you very much. for what you’ve pointed out. So now that we have heard this first round of comments from our presenters, it’s the first opportunity that we will have to interact with our audience, both those joining us here in the room and also online. So Ellen, do we have any comments in the chat?

Ellen Taylor: Thanks, Everton Teles Rodriguez. We do have one comment in the chat. Someone has kindly posted some information about how to join the European Youth Initiative called YouthDIG. So that is in the chat if anyone is interested. I also do have a question here if we are, if we’re okay to start the Q&A portion.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Sure, sure, please. Okay, fantastic.

Ellen Taylor: So a question here in the chat for Byron. So this person asks, does diversification of funding include the UN budget as a source when you haven’t, that you haven’t mentioned?

Byron Holland: So yes, definitely. I think that some element, various elements of the UN absolutely have a role to play in funding. My point more was that in a multi-stakeholder environment, I think it’s important not only for people to participate in the multi-stakeholder space, but quite frankly, all of us in this room bear some responsibility, not just for participating and providing our thoughts and our inputs and our organization’s commitment. But if we want this space to continue to exist, those organizations that can should be participating in it. So I think that in a space like this, having a single source of funding, which I’m not sure if that’s exactly what the question was getting at, but potentially a single source of funding like the UN, I think would be a disservice to a multi-stakeholder environment. And that’s why I believe that broader diversity of funding is really critical to making this whole enterprise be sustainable over the long haul.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you, Byron. Thank you, Alan. and well so contributions come not only from the microphones but also sometimes from financial contributions so this should be as well a source of contribution definitely thank you very much Byron. I see we have one comment from the microphone over here so Jordan thank you very much the floor is yours.

Jordan Carter: Thanks Everton Teles Rodriguez is this one on? Yes it is great yeah it’s weird when you don’t hear coming back. My name is Jordan Carter I work for the .au domain administration just offering a couple of personal comments here. An idea came up in a discussion earlier today I was part of about how to better connect the NRIs with the IGF process and it was to make sure that appointees to the IGF’s MAG as one of the sort of conditions of their appointment are people who are active in their NRI community to make sure that people in the MAG are already sensitized to the needs and the realities of grassroots issues and grassroots organizing on internet governance topics so instead of people who might be very detached from that process being part of the MAG community there would be a kind of a precondition it couldn’t be a universal one because of course some places don’t have NRIs but this might be a way to more strongly connect. The other point is an observation that in this context we have the WSIS review coming up at the end of the year I think we should be a little careful about how much we seek to see IGF improvement suggestions woven into the outcomes document of that review and agreed by an intergovernmental process versus things we can do for example like reviewing the terms of reference of the IGF’s MAG and things that we can do in a more administrative less politically sensitive way. and Saba Tiku Beyene are both working in a more collaborative, perhaps more multi-stakeholder fashion, to strengthen the institution as well. So I hope that people can think of things maybe that need to be done to strengthen the IGF in a really proactive, action-oriented way. They don’t all have to feed in just to the WSIS review, so I just encourage people to think a little bit outside the box, perhaps, about that. Thank you.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you very much. Thank you, Jordan. For the first part of your comment, I think that one of the key aspects would be to look at ourselves as a community. So we have MAG members that may or may not be part of an NRI, considering the existence or not of that NRI, but if we just look to ourselves as a real community and those who should be appointed to the MAG as part of this community instead of people coming from who knows where. So this is definitely a good point. Thank you very much for pointing that out. We have one more comment from the floor. Bertrand. Thank you very much.

Bertrand de la Chapelle: Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Bertrand de la Chapelle. I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network. I’m glad to see all those sessions about the IGF and the evolution of the IGF, and I want to continue on the track that I’ve shared in various other sessions. And listening to Byron, I think it’s important to understand that the question of the funding of the IGF cannot be dissociated from the evolution of the IGF. The current state of the IGF is a very hybrid situation where there is a lack of clarity of what exactly people are expecting this organization to produce. I think there’s been a real interesting convergence in a few other sessions on the notion that the core function of the IGF is this framing phase, the bringing people together, the decision shaping. and not the decision-making. And as Jordan had mentioned in another session, it is a little bit difficult to raise money from companies, for instance, when it’s not a decision-making body. It’s one of the conundrums. However, I strongly believe that if we have a clear discussion on how to improve the IGF, revise its mandate, organize its structure more formally around exactly the components that we have today, but in a more structured manner, then the question of funding will be possible to be addressed. The second point is, and I’m very glad that Jordan made the comment before me, because we shouldn’t try to solve this question in the WSIS plus 20 process the way it is today. There’s no way we will achieve something that is sufficiently comprehensive by December. However, by December, we should have put on the table the question of who are we asking to steer this discussion? Where do we anchor this? Is it in the UN? Is it in the CSTD? Is it in the high-level panel? Is it in any other structure? How do we have a multi-stakeholder discussion in 2026 on the evolution of the mandate, the evolution of the funding, and the evolution of the structure of the IGF, and under whose auspices, with which partners around the table? But the question of the evolution of the IGF is the one that should be high on the agenda as an outcome of the WSIS plus 20 review. Thank you.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Bertrand. Are there any reactions from our participants? Would you like to comment on what was shared with the audience? Any comments?

Byron Holland: As usual, Bertrand has a complex, multi-layered question slash comment, and I’m just going to pick up on one, unsurprisingly, the money part, because I think, you know, my comments were threefold about the different elements of funding it. As an organization with many ccTLD colleagues from around the world who has participated in funding the IGF over the years, it can be difficult just procedurally to do it because of the way it gets done, but also to Bertrand’s point about how is, how are the top, you know, essentially, what is the agenda and the purpose of the IGF going forward? I think for those who have been participating in the IGF over a number of years will recognize that we’ve seen the private sector step back considerably over the years. And I think that that’s, that’s a challenge on two fronts. One is, where are they? We can talk all we want about the platforms, but where are they? They need to be part of this conversation. And what can we do to make this space more relevant to get them back into the conversation? Because it’s beneficial for them to hear what the broader multi-stakeholder environment is saying, particularly in regards to some of the things that they’re doing. And it’s important that we hear it too. They have perspectives that maybe don’t get articulated in these spaces that are very, very relevant. So, the purpose and the format going forward need to encourage the private sector, the people who are actually providing the technologies often, a space to both listen and speak. And if we can do that, we will also find that diversity of funding will flow from that. So, I just want to say, I agree with Bertrand in terms of the sequencing. I, of course, was just initially speaking about the money, but the sequencing is also critical. If we take another layer deeper. You’ve got to provide the space that attracts the diversity of funders and making it relevant to the private sector actors is going to be key for that. Thanks.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you, Byron. Well, I just would like to know, as we still have some time, we still can have one more question from the audience and while we wait for the question from the audience, I would like to know, Ellen, if we have any comments or reactions online.

Ellen Taylor: Thanks, Everton Teles Rodriguez. There is one, just to clarify the question that was previously asked to Byron. So, just a note from Mark Cavell here. He says, I fully agree with Byron’s focus on diversification, but I was wondering if a supplementary UN budget provision would enhance confidence amongst other potential investors. It might attract wider government… Sorry, I misread that. It might also have another benefit in promoting wider active government support and participation in IGF meetings and activities. So, that was just a follow-up to the earlier question.

Byron Holland: Just comment on that.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Sure.

Byron Holland: And I would 100% agree. I think there needs to be a baseline funding from the UN and, of course, I was entirely remiss in not acknowledging the governments that support these events on an annual basis. I mean, I’m staring at Norway. 100%, we need to acknowledge the importance of the governments that put their hand up and invest considerable resources in the event itself. But baseline funding from the UN, the support of individual countries for the annual event and the diversity of funding from the multi-stakeholder community. That will create the diversity of funding that I think we need.

Allison O’Beirne: Yeah, I just want to follow up on that point, Byron, because I think you’re completely right. And I think one additional consideration as we’re thinking through the diversification of the funding… for IGF as well and thinking through, you know, potential sources of funding from the UN itself, we have to ensure that the IGF does not become solely reliant on the host country to kind of provide for the ability to be able to host, specifically because that limits down and puts a particular emphasis on which countries might have the capacity to be able to host. So seeking out those diverse sources of funding, ensuring that we keep business or bring business to the table, and likewise looking at sources from international organizations like the United Nations, allows us to envision an IGF where the host country maybe has a lesser burden or maybe is able to more easily host, even if they are not, you know, G7, G20 nation.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Alison. And well, with that, I would like just to thank you for the questions for those who participated from the floor. And now it’s time for one more interactive part of our session. We will be using Slido. So Ellen will display it for those joining us in person and those joining us online. So it will be soon on your screen. Here it is. So prepare your cell phones. And here it is. So, Ellen, can you just hit…

Ellen Taylor: It is loading. Apologies.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Yeah, it’s loading. So here you can find three… You will find three options for you to vote. Here is the code for you to reach to menti.com. Oops. Yes. So you can join us at menti.com and then in a few seconds. We are going to the questions. OK, so maybe it’s about time, so next slide, please. Here we have three suggestions of actions to strengthen the IJF, so you should pick your favorite of the three. So which one do you consider that should be the favorite? Please, Ellen.

Ellen Taylor: Thanks, Everton Teles Rodriguez. Just a quick note that this is a ranking activity. So feel free to position these three actions to strengthen the IJF that we heard from Alison at the beginning of the panel. Obviously, there are lots of great ideas. And so we’d just love to get a sense from you as to which ones you feel are the most awesome to, you know, also awesome. But in a ranked order. Thanks.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you, Ellen.

Allison O’Beirne: I love I love a ranked ballot of the ideas that I brought up. It gives me the opportunity to vote for myself no matter what. It’s really great.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: So I’ll give you a few seconds until. We see a trend. OK, so should we move to our next question, Ellen? I still see some voting here. People are thinking for a few seconds.

Ellen Taylor: Yeah, that looks great. So it looks like we have about 28 people, 29 filling this out, which is wonderful and lovely to see the make the IJF permanent seems to be resonating the most strongly with with the group.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Right. So going to our next one, we have improving youth engagement at the IJF. So again, we would like to see what are your best, best options or your preferred ones. Of course, again, as Ellen said, this is a non-exhaustive list of topics, so many should come from discussions. We could keep discussing this forever. This one is more balanced, heavily, really balanced.

Ellen Taylor: Wow, it’s a tie, a three-way tie. That’s awesome. So thanks to Marko for bringing up some great points for us to think about and all great ideas. All right. Thank you.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: So the actions to improve the accessibility and representation of the IGF. Okay, so it’s quite stable now, or not. Okay. And Now improving the idea of financial sustainability. Great.

Ellen Taylor: I think it looks like for this one, the first and second option are pretty close of diversified IGF funding base and promotion of long-term commitments to IGF funding. So thank you to Byron for bringing those to our attention and speaking so in-depth and gave us really great points to think about when we did this activity. And for the previous one as well, I forgot to mention apologies, but thanks to Saba for really bringing those three ideas for inclusivity and accessibility at the IGF and that long-term support was really emphasized in the one that became the most prominent amongst the audience. So thank you all for your participation and that’s the end of the Mentimeter. Over to you, Overton.

Everton Teles Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Ellen. And then, well, with that, I just would like to ask each of our presenters for a brief concluding their takeaways from the session and high-level thoughts on the future of the IGF. I’ll use the same order as in the first half, so please, Alison, thank you very much.

Allison O’Beirne: Yeah, for sure. Thanks, Overton. I’ll be very brief. I think it was heartening to see in the questions that were raised in the discussions that we had that folks are very focused on the long-term sustainability of IGF. I think I have participated in a number of international…

Everton Teles Rodriguez: and Tali Wald הפki The largest network is called Marko’s House and this is one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s one of the most renowned international forums in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. Tali’s House is the largest forum in the digital policy space and it’s wonderful to be in. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪

Agreement points

IGF requires diversified and sustainable funding from multiple stakeholder groups

Speakers

– Byron Holland
– Allison O’Beirne

Arguments

Funding should be diversified across all stakeholder groups in multi-stakeholder fashion rather than relying on single sources

UN baseline funding combined with diverse stakeholder contributions and government event support creates optimal funding model

Summary

Both speakers agree that IGF funding must come from diverse sources including UN baseline funding, government support, and multi-stakeholder contributions to ensure sustainability and prevent over-influence by any single group

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

National and Regional Initiatives need better integration with global IGF processes

Speakers

– Allison O’Beirne
– Jordan Carter
– Saba Tiku Beyene

Arguments

Need formal mechanisms to channel NRI inputs into global IGF agenda setting to strengthen multi-stakeholder representation

MAG appointees should be people active in their NRI communities to better connect grassroots issues with global processes

NRIs should serve as entry points to global IGF and be seen as spaces where new leaders are developed

Summary

All three speakers recognize that NRIs are valuable but currently underutilized, requiring better mechanisms to connect grassroots perspectives with global IGF agenda-setting and leadership development

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Capacity development

Youth engagement requires meaningful participation beyond token involvement

Speakers

– Marko Paloski
– Saba Tiku Beyene
– Everton Teles Rodriguez

Arguments

Youth are not just users but content creators, developers, and community builders who deserve representation at decision-making tables

Intergenerational dialogue and cross-regional learning opportunities should be encouraged to integrate youth voices into IGF agenda

Youth initiatives serve as crucial training grounds for future internet leaders and developers

Summary

All speakers emphasize that youth should be recognized as active contributors rather than passive users, requiring structured opportunities for meaningful engagement and leadership development

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Capacity development

IGF improvements should be pursued through multiple approaches rather than solely through WSIS+20

Speakers

– Bertrand de la Chapelle
– Jordan Carter

Arguments

Evolution of IGF mandate should be discussed in a multi-stakeholder process in 2026 rather than rushed through WSIS+20

IGF improvements should be pursued through collaborative, administrative means rather than solely through intergovernmental WSIS review

Summary

Both speakers agree that comprehensive IGF reform cannot be achieved through the WSIS+20 timeline and should involve multi-stakeholder processes and administrative improvements alongside intergovernmental discussions

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for greater inclusivity in IGF processes, focusing on representation of underserved communities and addressing language barriers that prevent meaningful participation

Speakers

– Allison O’Beirne
– Saba Tiku Beyene

Arguments

MAG should be more inclusive with better representation from emerging economies, Global South, and marginalized communities

Sessions need real-time captioning, live translations including widely spoken regional languages beyond UN languages

Topics

Sociocultural | Development | Human rights

Both speakers recognize that unclear IGF purpose and declining private sector engagement create interconnected challenges for both relevance and financial sustainability

Speakers

– Byron Holland
– Bertrand de la Chapelle

Arguments

Private sector participation has declined and needs to be re-engaged both for funding and relevance purposes

Current hybrid state lacks clarity about expected outcomes, making funding difficult to secure

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers focus on creating pathways for sustained engagement that address structural barriers preventing meaningful long-term participation in IGF processes

Speakers

– Saba Tiku Beyene
– Everton Teles Rodriguez

Arguments

Fellowship programs should provide long-term engagement with mentorship and post-engagement opportunities rather than one-time experiences

Language barriers between national and global IGF participation need to be addressed to maintain discussion quality

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

Administrative and collaborative approaches preferred over purely intergovernmental solutions

Speakers

– Bertrand de la Chapelle
– Jordan Carter
– Allison O’Beirne

Arguments

Evolution of IGF mandate should be discussed in a multi-stakeholder process in 2026 rather than rushed through WSIS+20

IGF improvements should be pursued through collaborative, administrative means rather than solely through intergovernmental WSIS review

IGF’s non-decisional nature is crucial to its success as it allows open collaboration without predetermined positions

Explanation

Despite representing different stakeholder perspectives, speakers converged on preferring multi-stakeholder collaborative approaches over traditional intergovernmental processes, emphasizing the value of the IGF’s unique non-decisional character

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Recognition that current IGF structure needs clarity while preserving core strengths

Speakers

– Bertrand de la Chapelle
– Allison O’Beirne
– Byron Holland

Arguments

IGF’s core function should focus on decision-shaping and framing rather than decision-making

IGF’s non-decisional nature is crucial to its success as it allows open collaboration without predetermined positions

Private sector participation has declined and needs to be re-engaged both for funding and relevance purposes

Explanation

Speakers from different backgrounds agreed that while the IGF needs structural improvements and clearer purpose definition, its fundamental non-decisional, collaborative nature should be preserved as a core strength

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers demonstrated strong consensus on key structural issues including the need for diversified funding, better NRI integration, meaningful youth engagement, and multi-stakeholder approaches to IGF evolution. There was notable agreement on preserving the IGF’s collaborative, non-decisional nature while addressing practical challenges around inclusivity, sustainability, and relevance.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. The agreement spans across different stakeholder groups and suggests a mature understanding of IGF challenges and solutions. This consensus provides a strong foundation for implementing coordinated improvements to strengthen the IGF while maintaining its core multi-stakeholder values.

Different viewpoints

Timeline and process for IGF mandate reform

Speakers

– Allison O’Beirne
– Bertrand de la Chapelle

Arguments

IGF should have a permanent mandate rather than ongoing renewals to enable strategic long-term planning and demonstrate global confidence

Evolution of IGF mandate should be discussed in a multi-stakeholder process in 2026 rather than rushed through WSIS+20

Summary

O’Beirne advocates for making the IGF mandate permanent as a direct action, while de la Chapelle argues that comprehensive IGF reform cannot be achieved by the December WSIS+20 deadline and should be properly discussed in a multi-stakeholder process in 2026

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Approach to IGF improvements through WSIS review

Speakers

– Jordan Carter
– Bertrand de la Chapelle

Arguments

IGF improvements should be pursued through collaborative, administrative means rather than solely through intergovernmental WSIS review

Evolution of IGF mandate should be discussed in a multi-stakeholder process in 2026 rather than rushed through WSIS+20

Summary

Carter suggests pursuing improvements through administrative changes and collaborative approaches rather than relying on WSIS review, while de la Chapelle focuses on establishing the proper framework and timeline for comprehensive mandate discussion

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Urgency vs. thoroughness in IGF reform

Speakers

– Allison O’Beirne
– Bertrand de la Chapelle

Arguments

IGF should have a permanent mandate rather than ongoing renewals to enable strategic long-term planning and demonstrate global confidence

Evolution of IGF mandate should be discussed in a multi-stakeholder process in 2026 rather than rushed through WSIS+20

Explanation

Unexpected because both speakers represent government/policy perspectives and might be expected to align on procedural approaches, but they differ significantly on whether to pursue immediate permanence or comprehensive future reform

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts centered on timing, process, and implementation approaches rather than fundamental goals. Key areas of disagreement included the timeline for IGF mandate reform and the appropriate channels for pursuing improvements.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers shared common goals of strengthening the IGF but differed on implementation strategies and timelines. This suggests good potential for consensus-building, as the disagreements are primarily procedural rather than substantive. The implications are positive for IGF development, as the community appears aligned on objectives while having healthy debate about optimal approaches.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for greater inclusivity in IGF processes, focusing on representation of underserved communities and addressing language barriers that prevent meaningful participation

Speakers

– Allison O’Beirne
– Saba Tiku Beyene

Arguments

MAG should be more inclusive with better representation from emerging economies, Global South, and marginalized communities

Sessions need real-time captioning, live translations including widely spoken regional languages beyond UN languages

Topics

Sociocultural | Development | Human rights

Both speakers recognize that unclear IGF purpose and declining private sector engagement create interconnected challenges for both relevance and financial sustainability

Speakers

– Byron Holland
– Bertrand de la Chapelle

Arguments

Private sector participation has declined and needs to be re-engaged both for funding and relevance purposes

Current hybrid state lacks clarity about expected outcomes, making funding difficult to secure

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers focus on creating pathways for sustained engagement that address structural barriers preventing meaningful long-term participation in IGF processes

Speakers

– Saba Tiku Beyene
– Everton Teles Rodriguez

Arguments

Fellowship programs should provide long-term engagement with mentorship and post-engagement opportunities rather than one-time experiences

Language barriers between national and global IGF participation need to be addressed to maintain discussion quality

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Capacity development

Key takeaways

The IGF should transition from periodic mandate renewals to a permanent mandate to enable strategic long-term planning and demonstrate global multi-stakeholder confidence

National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) need formal mechanisms to feed their insights into the global IGF agenda-setting process to strengthen multi-stakeholder representation

Youth engagement should move beyond participation to meaningful engagement, recognizing youth as content creators, developers, and community builders rather than just users

Financial sustainability requires three key elements: clearer public reporting of costs and funding flows, diversified funding across all stakeholder groups, and long-term commitments (5-year pledges)

Accessibility improvements should include real-time captioning, translations into widely spoken regional languages beyond UN languages, and long-term fellowship programs with mentorship

The IGF’s core strength lies in its non-decisional nature which enables open collaboration and its role in decision-shaping rather than decision-making

Private sector participation has declined significantly and needs to be re-engaged for both funding and relevance purposes

The Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) should be more inclusive with better representation from emerging economies, Global South, and marginalized communities

Resolutions and action items

Explore making the IGF mandate permanent rather than subject to ongoing renewals

Develop formal mechanisms to channel National and Regional Initiative inputs into global IGF agenda setting

Create intergenerational dialogue opportunities and cross-regional learning programs for youth

Implement clearer, publicly available reporting on IGF costs and funding flows across the ecosystem

Pursue diversified funding from all stakeholder groups including UN baseline funding, government event support, and private sector contributions

Encourage 5-year funding pledges to enable better long-term planning

Expand translation services to include widely spoken regional languages beyond the six UN languages

Transform fellowship programs from one-time experiences to long-term engagement with mentorship opportunities

Consider requiring MAG appointees to be active in their National/Regional IGF communities where they exist

Organize a multi-stakeholder discussion in 2026 on IGF mandate evolution, funding, and structure

Unresolved issues

How to re-engage private sector participation that has declined over the years

Where to anchor the discussion on IGF evolution – whether in UN, CSTD, high-level panel, or other structure

How much IGF improvement should be pursued through the WSIS+20 review versus administrative/collaborative means

How to balance host country burden with ensuring IGF accessibility for countries with varying capacities

How to address the procedural difficulties organizations face when trying to contribute funding to the IGF

What specific mechanisms should be used to capture and disseminate outcomes from National and Regional Initiatives

How to measure and report on the effectiveness of fellowship programs and long-term engagement initiatives

Suggested compromises

Pursue IGF improvements through both WSIS+20 outcomes (for high-level mandate questions) and collaborative administrative means (for operational improvements)

Combine UN baseline funding with diversified multi-stakeholder contributions rather than relying on any single funding source

Balance permanent mandate with continued demonstration of IGF value to stakeholders

Use 2026 as target date for comprehensive multi-stakeholder discussion on IGF evolution rather than rushing changes through WSIS+20

Implement graduated expectations for stakeholder contributions based on varying regional and organizational capacities (‘if we can, we should’ principle)

I think IGF’s non-decisional nature is also crucial to its success. It allows folks to come to the table in a spirit of openness and collaboration. I know from the government perspective particularly, we have a tendency to show up at some events with our positions all set and our decisions already made, and coming to IGF in a space where we’re not negotiating an outcomes document allows us to come in a spirit of collaboration and a spirit of learning and listening as well.

Speaker

Allison O’Beirne

Reason

This comment provides a counterintuitive insight about how the IGF’s perceived weakness (not making decisions) is actually its strength. It reveals the psychological dynamics of how different stakeholders approach forums differently based on their mandate.

Impact

This framing established a foundation for later discussions about IGF’s unique value proposition and influenced how other speakers positioned their recommendations around preserving this collaborative nature while strengthening other aspects.

I want also to point out that one thing is youth involvement and one thing is youth engagement because we have seen a lot of other conferences and stuff that they have youth and the participation but it’s not on the same level as engagement… youths are not just the users because currently in these days, they are also doing content creation. They are doing the developing, researching, community buildings.

Speaker

Marko Paloski

Reason

This distinction between involvement versus engagement is profound and challenges tokenistic approaches to youth participation. The observation about youth as creators rather than just users reframes the entire conversation about their role in internet governance.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from simply ‘including youth’ to understanding their substantive contributions, influencing Saba’s subsequent recommendations about intergenerational dialogue and peer learning processes.

It’s important to emphasize that this applies not only to global IGFs but to the wider ecosystem of national, regional and youth IGFs, the NRIs… if we want this space to continue to exist, those organizations that can should be participating in it… having a single source of funding like the UN, I think would be a disservice to a multi-stakeholder environment.

Speaker

Byron Holland

Reason

This comment connects financial sustainability directly to the multi-stakeholder principle, arguing that funding diversity mirrors and reinforces governance diversity. It’s a sophisticated understanding of how financial structures can undermine or support institutional values.

Impact

This insight shifted the funding discussion from purely practical considerations to philosophical ones about preserving the IGF’s multi-stakeholder nature, leading to more nuanced exchanges about balancing UN baseline funding with diverse contributions.

The current state of the IGF is a very hybrid situation where there is a lack of clarity of what exactly people are expecting this organization to produce… However, I strongly believe that if we have a clear discussion on how to improve the IGF, revise its mandate, organize its structure more formally around exactly the components that we have today, but in a more structured manner, then the question of funding will be possible to be addressed.

Speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

Reason

This comment diagnoses a fundamental problem – that the IGF’s unclear purpose makes it difficult to fund and improve. It challenges the group to think more systematically about institutional design rather than making incremental improvements.

Impact

This intervention created a turning point in the discussion, prompting Byron to acknowledge the complexity and sequencing issues, and leading to a more sophisticated conversation about the relationship between institutional clarity and financial sustainability.

An idea came up in a discussion earlier today… to make sure that appointees to the IGF’s MAG as one of the sort of conditions of their appointment are people who are active in their NRI community… instead of people who might be very detached from that process being part of the MAG community.

Speaker

Jordan Carter

Reason

This is a concrete, actionable proposal that addresses the disconnect between global and local levels. It’s insightful because it tackles governance structure in a way that could organically improve representation and connection.

Impact

This practical suggestion resonated with the moderator’s observation about community connectivity and provided a specific mechanism for implementing the broader principles discussed about NRI integration.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond surface-level improvements to deeper questions about institutional design and purpose. The conversation evolved from a series of separate recommendations to a more integrated understanding of how the IGF’s non-decisional nature, multi-stakeholder funding, youth engagement, and governance structures are interconnected. Particularly impactful was the progression from Allison’s framing of the IGF’s collaborative strength, through the nuanced discussions of engagement versus involvement and funding diversity, to Bertrand’s challenge about institutional clarity. This created a sophisticated dialogue that recognized the IGF’s current success while grappling with fundamental questions about its future evolution and sustainability.

How can we create formal mechanisms for channeling inputs from national and regional initiatives into the agenda setting for the broader IGF?

Speaker

Allison O’Beirne

Explanation

This addresses the current siloed communication between regional initiatives and the central IGF program, which limits the multi-stakeholder input into agenda setting

How can we make the MAG more inclusive to ensure voices from emerging economies, global south, and marginalized communities are well represented?

Speaker

Allison O’Beirne

Explanation

This is crucial for ensuring the IGF’s agenda truly reflects diverse global perspectives and maintains its multi-stakeholder nature

How much money flows into the IGF and its broader ecosystem, and what are the associated costs with annual conferences, the Secretariat, and wider ecosystem activities?

Speaker

Byron Holland

Explanation

Clear financial transparency is needed to support strategic engagement, identify funding gaps, and strengthen sustainability efforts

Should appointees to the IGF’s MAG be required to be active in their NRI community as a condition of appointment?

Speaker

Jordan Carter

Explanation

This could better connect grassroots internet governance issues with global IGF decision-making and ensure MAG members are sensitized to local needs

Who should steer the discussion on IGF evolution and where should it be anchored – in the UN, CSTD, high-level panel, or other structure?

Speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

Explanation

This fundamental governance question needs resolution to enable proper multi-stakeholder discussion on IGF mandate, funding, and structure evolution

How can we make the IGF space more relevant to attract private sector participation back into the conversation?

Speaker

Byron Holland

Explanation

Private sector participation has declined significantly, but their involvement is crucial for both multi-stakeholder dialogue and funding diversification

How can we accommodate linguistic diversity beyond the six UN languages, particularly widely spoken regional languages like Yoruba?

Speaker

Saba Tiku Beyene

Explanation

True inclusivity requires considering languages spoken by large populations, not just official UN languages, though financial constraints need to be addressed

How can we establish reporting mechanisms to analyze participation and outcomes of fellowship and mentorship programs?

Speaker

Saba Tiku Beyene

Explanation

This would help evaluate the effectiveness of inclusion efforts and ensure long-term engagement rather than one-time experiences

Would supplementary UN budget provision enhance confidence amongst other potential investors and promote wider government participation?

Speaker

Mark Cavell (via online comment)

Explanation

This explores whether UN baseline funding could serve as a catalyst for attracting additional diverse funding sources and broader government engagement

Summary

This discussion focused on local data governance for global public good, featuring panelists from various National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) who explored how communities can effectively manage data while protecting individual rights and promoting inclusion. Ahmed Fraag emphasized that data governance requires multi-stakeholder collaboration involving governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities, stressing the need for frameworks that balance innovation with privacy protection. Una Wang from Singapore IGF addressed the challenge of building multilingual AI systems, highlighting how thousands of languages risk digital extinction and proposing community-driven approaches through decentralized autonomous language organizations (LanguageDAOs) that allow communities to own and monetize their linguistic data.

Chelsea Horne from USA IGF discussed mechanisms for helping people understand and manage data permissions, advocating for user-friendly interfaces, granular consent systems, and standardized privacy tools while avoiding deceptive “dark patterns.” Beatriz Costa Barbosa from Brazil IGF shared Brazil’s successful multi-stakeholder approach to developing data protection laws, including constitutional amendments and ongoing public consultations that adapt global standards to local contexts. Nancy Kanasa from Pacific IGF highlighted the need for indigenous data sovereignty and breaking down data silos between institutions, emphasizing how digital exclusion undermines vulnerable communities.

The discussion revealed common challenges across regions, including limited digital literacy, infrastructure gaps, and the need for locally relevant governance frameworks. Participants stressed the importance of community engagement, capacity building, and regional cooperation among NRIs. The session concluded with calls for continued collaboration between NRIs to develop inclusive data governance approaches that respect local values while meeting global standards for fairness and accountability.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multi-stakeholder Data Governance Frameworks**: The need for collaborative approaches involving governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities to create responsible data governance that balances innovation with protection against misuse.

– **Multilingual Data Inclusion and Community Sovereignty**: Addressing the digital divide for underrepresented languages (7,000+ languages vs. 100 covered by current systems) through community-driven approaches like LanguageDAO, where language communities control and monetize their linguistic data.

– **User Empowerment in Data Permissions**: Implementing user-friendly mechanisms for data consent management, including granular consent options, just-in-time notifications, and standardized privacy interfaces that avoid “dark patterns” while preventing information overload.

– **Regional Adaptation of Global Standards**: How countries, particularly in the Global South, can adapt international data protection frameworks (like GDPR) to local contexts, infrastructure limitations, and cultural values, as demonstrated by Brazil’s experience with LGPD.

– **Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Digital Infrastructure**: Addressing data silos, building local capacity, and ensuring marginalized communities (especially Pacific Island nations and rural populations) aren’t left behind in digital transformation while maintaining control over their data.

## Overall Purpose:

This session aimed to explore how National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) can develop locally relevant data governance frameworks that serve the global public good, with particular focus on empowering underrepresented communities and regions in the Global South.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, characterized by knowledge-sharing and mutual learning among practitioners. Speakers demonstrated genuine concern for digital inclusion and equity, with the tone becoming increasingly solution-oriented as panelists shared practical experiences and concrete recommendations. The atmosphere was respectful and encouraging, with participants actively building on each other’s insights rather than debating opposing viewpoints.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Ahmed Fraag** – Expert in regulatory frameworks and data governance

– **Tijani Ben Jemaa** – Participant asking questions about Web3 and blockchain technology

– **Aicha Jeridi** – Online session moderator

– **Nancy Kanasa** – Representative from Pacific IGF, works with the government of Papua New Guinea

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members including Mohammad Abdulhakonu (Secretary General, Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum), Abdelgeril Basharbon (National Coordinator, IGF Chad), and Kosi Amesinu (from Benin)

– **Poncelet Ileleji** – Session moderator

– **Chelsea Horne** – Representative from USA IGF, expert in data permissions and privacy mechanisms

– **Beatriz Costa Barbosa** – Representative from Brazilian IGF, member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (civil society representative)

– **Una Wang** – Co-founding member of Singapore Internet Governance Forum, founder and CEO of LingoAI, private sector representative

**Additional speakers:**

– **Mohammad Abdulhakonu** – Secretary General, Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum

– **Abdelgeril Basharbon** – National Coordinator, IGF Chad

– **Kosi Amesinu** – Representative from Benin

– **Yeng-Chu Chen** – Participant who asked questions about regional data agreements and commented on Bhutan’s electronic identity system

# Local Data Governance for Global Public Good: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) session brought together representatives from Singapore, Brazil, Papua New Guinea, and the United States to discuss data governance challenges and solutions. The session was moderated by Poncelet Ileleji with Aicha Jeridi serving as online moderator. Participants included audience members from Bangladesh, Chad, and Benin who contributed questions and perspectives throughout the discussion.

The session featured practical experiences from different regions, with speakers sharing specific examples of data governance implementation, challenges with digital inclusion, and approaches to balancing innovation with protection. Key topics included multilingual data inclusion, user empowerment in data permissions, regional adaptation of global standards, and infrastructure development needs.

## Key Speakers and Their Contributions

### Ahmed Fraag – Regulatory Frameworks Perspective

Ahmed Fraag emphasized that data governance represents a critical priority due to artificial intelligence and emerging technologies requiring responsible, transparent, rights-based use of data. He noted that “Responsible data governance is not about regulation, it’s not just about data regulation. It is about creating an ecosystem where data-served people empower communities and support innovation.”

Fraag highlighted that effective data governance necessitates multi-stakeholder collaboration involving governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities. He mentioned Egypt’s data protection law from 2020 as an example of recent regulatory developments.

### Una Wang – Singapore IGF and LingoAI

Una Wang, co-founding member of Singapore Internet Governance Forum (recently recognized by UN IGF in January) and founder and CEO of LingoAI, addressed linguistic diversity in digital systems. She presented statistics showing that while over 7,000 languages exist globally, current speech recognition systems cover only 100 languages at most.

Wang proposed community-driven solutions through decentralized autonomous language organizations (LanguageDAOs), explaining that “It’s not just about inclusion, it’s about sovereignty… Each community decides what data to share, how it’s used, and under what conditions.” She clarified the distinction between Web3.0 (defined in 2006 as “the web of data”) and Web3 blockchain applications, noting her use of blockchain specifically for global payments in the LanguageDAO system.

### Beatriz Costa Barbosa – Brazilian Internet Governance Forum

Beatriz Costa Barbosa drew upon Brazil’s 30+ years of experience with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. She highlighted Brazil’s data protection law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados – LGPD) passed in 2018, which adopted a principle-based structure enabling adaptability in implementation. She noted that data protection became a constitutional right in Brazil through constitutional amendment.

Costa Barbosa emphasized that public participation through consultations and hearings is crucial for developing contextually appropriate laws, and stressed the importance of countries building their own public infrastructure rather than relying solely on global technology companies.

### Nancy Kanasa – Papua New Guinea Government

Nancy Kanasa from Papua New Guinea government provided insights into Pacific Island challenges, noting that “building resilient and inclusive data governance in the Pacific is not just a technical goal. It is a social, cultural, and institutional journey.”

She shared specific examples including VAT certificate delays in Papua New Guinea and Fiji’s e-bus ticketing system, highlighting how digital exclusion undermines vulnerable communities. Kanasa emphasized the need for indigenous data sovereignty and breaking down data silos between institutions.

### Chelsea Horne – USA IGF

Chelsea Horne addressed user experience and data permissions, advocating for user-friendly interfaces that clearly explain data collection and use. She emphasized that “any mechanisms implemented do not force undue burden of responsibility on people to manage their own data security and privacy.”

Horne proposed standardized consent language and icons to reduce cognitive load while empowering users with granular consent mechanisms that allow specific permissions for different data uses.

## Major Discussion Points and Areas of Agreement

### Multi-stakeholder Collaboration

All speakers agreed that effective data governance requires meaningful engagement across governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities. This consensus emerged consistently across different technical and regulatory approaches.

### Community-driven Approaches

Speakers emphasized that effective data governance must be community-driven and adapted to local contexts. Wang’s sovereignty-focused approach, Kanasa’s emphasis on cultural adaptation, and Costa Barbosa’s experience with public participation all reinforced this principle.

### Balancing Innovation with Protection

Participants agreed that data governance should enable innovation and public good while maintaining strong protections. This balance was reflected in discussions of principle-based regulatory frameworks and ecosystem-building approaches.

## Points of Disagreement and Unresolved Issues

### Web3 Technology Implementation

A disagreement emerged between Una Wang and Tijani Ben Jemaa regarding Web3 technology. Wang advocated for Web3 as a decentralized data ownership solution, while Ben Jemaa raised concerns about blockchain’s energy consumption, asking “How can Web3 projects based on blockchain technology be feasible if the energy consumption issue of blockchain is not solved?”

### Infrastructure Development Approaches

A significant tension arose regarding global technology companies’ role in local infrastructure. Kosi Amesinu from Benin suggested engaging companies like Meta and TikTok to build local data centers, emphasizing that infrastructure is needed before meaningful data governance.

Costa Barbosa strongly disagreed, stating: “I would encourage you not only to invite TikTok or Meta to build data centres in your country, but for your country, your companies, your government, to build a public infrastructure to deal with the data from the dependent citizens, because this is important for your digital sovereignty.”

### Implementation Mechanisms

Several issues remained unresolved, including specific mechanisms for ensuring meaningful consent in low digital literacy environments, funding for local data infrastructure in developing countries, and standardization versus localization in regional frameworks.

## Audience Participation and Questions

### Bangladesh Perspective

Mohammad Abdulhakonu from Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum asked about designing context-sensitive data governance frameworks that uphold global standards while respecting local values, infrastructure limitations, and digital literacy levels.

### Chad’s Communication Challenge

Abdelgeril Basharbon from IGF Chad asked about communicating data protection laws to communities who use social media but are unaware of data protection regulations, highlighting the need for awareness-building in local languages.

### Benin’s Infrastructure Focus

Kosi Amesinu from Benin emphasized that data centers and local infrastructure are needed before meaningful data governance can be implemented, leading to the infrastructure development debate.

### Regional Cooperation Question

Yeng-Chu Chen raised questions about designing regional data agreements that support cooperation without creating trade barriers.

## Practical Recommendations

Based on the discussion, several concrete recommendations emerged:

### Capacity Building

– Organize workshops on data protection awareness in local languages

– Target rural and marginalized communities specifically

– Develop experience-sharing programs between countries with implemented frameworks and those developing them

### Infrastructure Development

– Invest in building public data infrastructure

– Consider hybrid approaches that balance sovereignty with practical needs

– Address infrastructure as a prerequisite to policy frameworks

### Regional Cooperation

– Establish mechanisms for policy coordination

– Develop cross-border data sharing agreements

– Build regional consciousness around data governance challenges

### Implementation Approaches

– Adopt principle-based rather than prescriptive regulatory frameworks

– Create phased implementation strategies for gradual capacity building

– Develop standardized consent mechanisms that don’t burden users

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated the complexity of implementing data governance frameworks that serve diverse communities while addressing practical constraints. While significant challenges remain around infrastructure, capacity building, and balancing global standards with local contexts, the discussion revealed strong consensus on fundamental principles of community empowerment, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the need for locally adapted solutions.

The role of National and Regional Internet Governance Forums in facilitating these discussions emerged as crucial, with the session itself representing months of collaborative planning between multiple NRIs. As moderator Poncelet Ileleji noted in closing, the session exemplified the value of NRI cooperation in addressing shared challenges while respecting diverse regional contexts and needs.

Poncelet Ileleji: So I will start off with Ahmed to discuss about data in terms of regulatory frameworks and how it looks at it. Over to you, Ahmed. Thank you, Poncelet, and thank you all for attending this session.

Ahmed Fraag: It’s really, I’m proud to be part of this important discussion, and I think we all agree that data governance became a critical priority as we witnessed the growing influence of artificial intelligence and emerging technology, the demand of responsible, transparent, and right-based use of data is greater than ever. These technologies rely heavily on a massive amount of data, making it essential to establish a strong governance framework that protects privacy, builds trust, and promotes digital justice. Without sound of data governance, we risk deepening digital divide and enabling the misuse of data in ways that can harm individuals and communities. When we talk about data governance frameworks, we should not forget the importance of multi-stakeholders’ collaboration efforts. Engaging governments, the private sector, civil society, and technical community is essential as well. The opening consultation, especially when dealing with emerging and complex issues such as AI regulation, is very important. Also it’s very important to share best practice of success stories regionally and globally, ensuring innovative approaches and technology to enhance data governance. I’m confident that responsible data governance is not about regulation, it’s not just about data regulation. It is about creating an ecosystem where data-served people empower communities and support innovation. As AI and digital technology continue to advance, we have to ensure that our governance frameworks evolve accordingly. This issue requires a balanced approach, one that is flexible, enough to encourage innovation and make use of data for public good, but also strict enough to protect personal data and prevent misuse. Back to you, thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Ahmed. I think that last statement to prevent data misuse is very key. I’m not going to waste time. We’ll move to the second question because we have a lot of things to cover here. So over to you, Una, who will be talking about building multilingual systems and how to navigate the tension between data inclusion and data protection. Over to you, Una.

Una Wang: Okay, thank you, Poncelet. Good morning, everyone. My name is Una. I’m the co-founding member of Singapore Internet Governance Forum and the founder and CEO of LingoAI. Today, I’m the representative of the private sector here and it’s a pleasure to join the panel today. So yesterday, I attended the three powerful workshops in the junior languages in the digital age. And one thing is very clear, is that each nation representative deeply cares about their languages not being left behind in the digital and AI era. So there’s a growing awareness that if a language isn’t represented in the digital system, it risks disappearing entirely from future global conversations. So many of the world’s languages are in danger of disappearing and the limitations of a current speech, recognition, and gender. generation technology will only accelerate this trend. We want to make it easier for people to access information and use devices in their preferred languages, and collecting the audio data for thousands of languages was first a challenge because the largest existing speech data sites cover 100 languages at most. So there are currently over 7,000 languages being spoken around the world today. There are more dialects which are often not represented in the training data, even for high-resource languages such as English. So this can lead to undesirable biases in the performance of these models. So from a private sector perspective, Lingo.ai is an AI and data economy platform designed to unlock the value of under-represented language data. So we try to address this by building systems where communities are in control. We take a bottom-up, community-driven approach to build the multilingual AI systems. So one of our core frameworks is something we call LanguageDAO, a decentralized autonomous language organization for each language group. So through this LanguageDAO, speakers of the language can own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data. Each community decides what data to share, how it’s used, and under what conditions. It’s not just about inclusion, it’s about sovereignty. So the platform we support is based on the personal online data storage inspired by the decentralized technologies such as the social link data protocol. This means individuals and the communities can store their data locally and even on personal devices and authorize access to specific organizations. the data remain owned by the people, not by the centralized platforms. So the ownership isn’t enough. We should provide the infrastructure and the connections. We also make data liquid and useful, helping community connect with organizations that need diverse language data for AI, education, accessibility, and more. And this way, we turn data into opportunity, responsibly and transparently, even the monetization opportunity. So we have learned the checkbox, and ultimately the conflict between data inclusion and data protection is real, but it’s not unsolvable. So what need is community-driven governance, open tools, and the deep collaboration between multi-stakeholders. And this is my message.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you. Thank you very much, Una. You really rounded it up about the need for inclusion and the need for it to be driven by the community in terms of languages. Without much ado, I’m going to hand over now to Chelsea from the USA IGF. She’ll be addressing the question on how can mechanisms be implemented to make it easier for people to understand and manage the permissions they grant for the use of their data. You know, those permissions for the use of their data is very key. So over to you, Chelsea.

Chelsea Horne: Thank you very much for this fantastic question. And thank you to the organizing committee for putting together this important panel with such esteemed colleagues. I really love this question because it brings together so many of the critical issues of data governance in a seemingly simple question or issue. So these issues are responsibility, design, privacy and security, safety, trust, consent, control, and choice, all within one simple premise of design. mechanisms. It is important to ensure that any mechanisms implemented do not force undue burden of responsibility on people to manage their own data security and privacy. This is part of building in privacy and security measures by design. From there, making data permissions understandable and manageable is key to empowering individuals. There are several approaches to accomplish this. User friendly interfaces, designing intuitive and visually engaging privacy dashboards and settings that are clearly, accessibly, and succinctly designed are important and that as long as they address these few key details such as who is collecting what data and why, so that means for what purpose, and how it will be used. Privacy friendly choices and defaults are also important to address. To be conscious to avoid what’s now being called dark patterns, those are those deceptive and confusing structures that may nudge users towards choices they may not otherwise have made. Some other options in these user friendly facing mechanisms. Granular consent mechanisms. Moving beyond this all-or-nothing consent framework to allow users to grant specific permissions for different types of data use, so for analytics, personalized ads, or sharing with third parties. The challenge here with granular consent mechanisms is that while it offers more nuanced choice and control, it comes at the cost of information overload. Then we have just-in-time notifications, providing contextual notifications at the point of data collection or use, explaining the implications of granting or denying a specific permission. Now this can help with the clarity of data collection, but also can create additional friction as users navigate through an interface. And finally another option to consider are standardized consent language and icons, developing standardized, easily recognizable icons, simplified language for common data permissions like nutrition labels that we see on food, and some standard localized defaults can all help to reduce cognitive load and information overload, all while aiming to empower people with information and choice. So to sum up, the design, development, and deployment of these mechanisms to empower people is a balancing act between responsibility, trust, resilience, and safety, and it’s critical that we get it right. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Chelsea. You just spoke of a topic that is very interesting and very passionate, and everybody should take congestant of the fact that a lot of use of our data is basically in fine prints, and I think you have covered all the areas that people need to take note of regarding use of their data and what permissions to seek. Without much ado, I’m going to move on to Beatriz, a colleague from the Brazilian NRI. Beatriz will be speaking on how to develop and implement a multi-stakeholder data governance process that is quickly responsive to new technologies’ challenges, and of course, one of those new technologies’ challenges we are all dealing with is AI. Over to you, Beatriz.

Beatriz Costa Barbosa: This is the first one you’re supposed to turn on. Oh, I didn’t know. I’m so sorry. Thank you. So good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for the invitation for the Brazilian IGF to be here. I’m a member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, which organizes the Brazilian IGF. I’m a member of the board as one of the civil society representatives, and I would like to share with you a little bit about the long-standing tradition that we have. So, the first question is, what is the role of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, which is a global organization that Brazil has in promoting public participation in debates across various policy areas. Regarding digital issues, this tradition is reflected in the stakeholder model endorsed by our Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, that it has more than 30 years of work, and which is why it is a key part of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, in Portuguese, has contributed to key Internet development process in the country, including the Internet, the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, and the Brazilian General Data Protection Law, LGPD. Discussions around both laws began in parallel in the early 2010s through public consultations, already adopting a multistakeholder approach. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, as you know, our data protection law contains characteristics tailored to the Brazilian context. It’s important to highlight that multistakeholder discussions promoted by the CGI, such as the Privacy and Data Protection Seminar, and the Brazilian IGF, held for over 15 years, played a significant role in shaping the discussions regarding the law. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, as you know, has provided a space for the consolidation of a national community engaged in these topics with representatives from various stakeholders. Inspired by the European General Data Protection Regulation, the Brazilian law adopts a principle-based structure that enables adaptability in its implementation. To support the practical application of the law in different contexts, the Brazilian Data Protection Committee elected BIA was instrumental in constructing this approach. It has been involved in employing a of the Brazilian data protection authority. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to implementing the law. In addition, the Brazilian data protection authority has made efforts to include public participation in its rule-making and regulatory process. These efforts include open calls for contributions and public consultations to capture society’s perspectives on various topics under discussion. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to implementing the law. The Brazilian data protection authority has a strong governmental views in developing personal data governance in Brazil. Within the national data protection authority structure, the national council for personal data protection and privacy, it’s worth mentioning. This consultative body supports the authority’s work by conducting studies, organizing public hearings and promoting data protection awareness. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to implementing the law. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to promoting data protection awareness in the private sector besides labor unions and the CGI.BR itself. We have a seat at this council. Brazil is also in the process of developing, as you mentioned before, developing a regulatory framework for artificial intelligence regulation. This framework is designed to be implemented by the Brazilian government, as well as the national data protection authority, as the coordination authority, and a set of sectoral regulators. Such system would also include a permanent council for regulatory cooperation in AI responsible for dialogue with regulators in civil society. And also a committee of AI experts and scientists. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to implementing a regulatory framework for artificial intelligence regulation in the private sector besides labor unions and the CGI.BR itself. This framework is designed to be implemented by the Brazilian government, as the coordination authority, and a set of sectoral regulators in civil society. Such system would also include a permanent council for regulatory cooperation in AI responsible for dialogue with regulators in civil society. the framework in the European GDPR and the Brazil data protection law, others are still under development, so principles such as those in Sao Paulo guidelines, the Net Mundial Plus 10 event that deals especially with the multi-stakeholder issue, can be essential in supporting the fair, accountable and responsible implementation of such frameworks. The guidelines emphasize the key elements such as ensuring balanced access to information for informed decision making, respect for human rights and diversity in governance process, continuous stakeholder capacity building, cooperation and oversight among governance mechanisms and a focus on delivering tangible and applicable outcomes. So I’ll be happy to go a little bit further on this topic if we have time later on. Thank you very much.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much Beatriz, I think it does show the work that this CGI.br is doing in terms of stakeholder engagement in regards to data protection that covers a lot of aspects and the way you go about it dealing with the community. Without much ado, our last panelist for this session before we go into the online questions from online and to you, our audience here, is Nancy Kanasa from the Pacific IGF. She will be speaking how can the Pacific and Global South network develop resilient and inclusive data governance frameworks that uphold indigenous data sovereignty. You know, when we’re talking of indigenous data sovereignty, we have to know we’re also dealing with those people who in a way… this discourse sometimes feel marginalized. Over to you, Nancy.

Nancy Kanasa: Good morning, everyone. I’m Nancy Kanassa from the Pacific, KGF. I work with the government of Papua New Guinea. I would like to take this opportunity to be speaking here. I’m here not only as a practitioner working on the real-world data governance challenges in Papua New Guinea, but also as a representative of government effort across the Pacific region. Our nation share common culture values, institutional landscape, and technological challenges which shape our collective approach to data governance. My response reflects the Pacific context grounded in living experience and the realities of government-led initiative to support sustainable development amid global technological shift. One of the persistent challenges we face across the Pacific is the fragmentation of data systems, often referred to as data silos. This fragmentation – sorry, this silo exists between government agencies, civil society, academia, and communities, limiting every actor’s ability to share knowledge, coordinate response, and make informed decisions. But it is not just the silo themselves. We also face a deeper issue, the lack of strategic thinking and structured process to address them. In many cases, data governance efforts are reactive rather than proactive and without a clear strategy. It’s difficult to align institutions, build trust, or create systems that are resilient and inclusive. In Papua New Guinea, for example, the lack of coordinated data systems and strategies planning, as lead to delays in issuing VAT certificate, a basic but essential service. Without streamlined data sharing between departments, families face long wait times and administrative barriers. Similarly, in Fiji, the e-bus ticketing system has exposed gap in digital inclusion. Elderly citizens, rural communities, and those unfamiliar with digital tools often struggle to access or use the system effectively. This example highlights how digital inclusion and system barriers can prevent citizens from accessing essential service. They also underscore a greater need for public involvement and oversight in our digital system of design and government. So I return to the question again, and in our case, the Pacific developed resilient and inclusive data governance framework that upholds indigenous data sovereignty. Breaking down these silos is essential. It requires trust, collaboration, and culturally grounded approach that respect local knowledge systems while enabling interoperability and innovation. Without strong institutional coordination, trust-building mechanism, and policies that reflect our Pacific values and indigenous knowledge system, it became difficult to create governance framework that are both inclusive and resilient. As global technological shift accelerate, it is increasingly important for Pacific nations to align with international standards, especially in areas like data privacy, cybersecurity, digital inclusion, and now artificial intelligence. One key answer is awareness and capacity building in a global space where we can bring it back to be done in a way that is retailable and contextualize the local realities. Digital frameworks and tools are valuable, but they must be adapted to fit culture, institution, and infrastructural context of Pacific nations to truly solve the issue we face in our countries. This is why government participation in global platforms such as the Internet Governance Forum is so critical for us. From my view, from the government, a department where we are mandated to make policies and technical implementation. The IGF provided space for dialogue, learning, awareness of what we are doing, and influence where our passive voice can be heard. Our unique challenges can be understood and our priorities can be shaped global norms. One key benefit of engaging in such forum is the opportunity to build partnership and access resource that support the development of inclusive, locally grounded, and globally connected data governance framework. Building resilient and inclusive data governance in the Pacific is not just a technical goal. It is a social, cultural, and institutional journey. It requires leadership, strategic thinking, and a commitment to ensure that no one is left behind in the digital age. When digital infrastructure excludes vulnerable groups, it undermines the principle of data as a global public good. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Nancy. It’s good we have a speaker speaking from a government point of view, from lessons and implementation frameworks, focusing on indigenous data sovereignty from the Pacific IGF. And now, we are lucky, and thank you, speakers, for keeping the time very good, so we will have a good engagement with our audience here, which I’m sure represents different NRIs and other practitioners. I will now hand over to Aicha, who is moderating the online session on questions online, and then we’ll move over to the audience. From the audience, if you’re asking any question, please say your name and your representation and who you’re addressing the question to. If it’s a general question, then I’ll call on any of the… of our distinguished speakers here to answer it. Over to you, Aicha.

Aicha Jeridi: Thank you, Poncelet. Good morning, everyone. So in terms of comments and reaction online, we didn’t receive any comments yet. The only comment is from Weddybeck, who was thanking Chelsea for her intervention. So we are yet to receive any other reaction. The session is still on, so we can receive other reactions or interventions. So over to you, Poncelet.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you, Aicha, for that. So over to you, audience. Please, let’s get your questions coming in.

Audience: Thank you, moderator. This is Mohammad Abdulhakonu, Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum. I am a Secretary General. My question is, given the limited adoption of comprehensive data protection laws in the Global South, how can we design contest sensitive data governance framework that upload global standard of fairness and accountability while respecting local values, infrastructure limitations, and digital literacy levels, especially in countries like Bangladesh?

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you. Thank you very much for that question. Any other one? That question, I will let Beatriz from Brazil answer it, because they really have a good process we can all learn from.

Beatriz Costa Barbosa: Sir, thank you very much. I’m not pretty aware of the context of Bangladesh, but I can share a little bit what happened in Brazil during the process regarding the data protection development in Brazil, the data protection bill. We, as I mentioned before, we try to foster a very collaborative process, because even if we were inspired by the European General Data Protection Regulation at that time, it was necessary to adapt the context and these global standards, as you mentioned, to our reality, a reality of a country of 220 million people, many of them that don’t have digital literacy, that give our IDs everywhere to have discounts in prices of supermarkets and other sales in magazines, and then the idea was to take advantage of the development of the bill to raise awareness of people on the importance of this topic, and right now, the Brazilian data protection law was approved in 2018, so we have seven years of implementation of the law in Brazil, we still have many people that are not aware at all of their rights regarding personal data protection, but we are moving forward, and one of the things that is important to bring this awareness to the population is the debates that we try to organize at the CGI.br, and also the Brazilian authority has promoted some seminars and public hearings and consultations to involve the Brazilian population in this debate, because if we deal with this topic, thinking that the data protection topic is something for experts or for scientists or for only digital rights civil society organizations, we’re not going to achieve our goal that the Brazilian population feels that they have a right to that. In this process, one of the strategies that the Brazilian civil society managed to put in place was to include the data protection right in the list of civil rights in our constitution. This was a consequence of the bill after the bill was approved in 2018. 2018, and three years later, a Brazilian parliamentarian that was very much connected to the civil society movement decided to propose an amendment to the Brazilian constitution, and now, besides the data protection law, it is inscripted in our constitution that data protection is a right to every citizen, so it was necessary to give more visibility to this process in Brazil, and I think that after that, the Brazilian population started worrying about being worried and being alert at the time regarding their rights, but we still have a long way to fulfil this goal, is that every citizen knows that he has a right to protect, to have his personal data protected, not only by the government, but also by the private companies, but I think that engaging civil society all the time in this process, and not only treating this as something that is related to the government, has helped us to adapt the global standards to our context, and to deal with the daily problems that the Brazilian population suffers.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Beatriz, for that brilliant intervention. I’ll call out to Aicha, who wants to intervene on this topic. Aicha?

Aicha Jeridi: Yes, so we have an intervention, a reaction from the floor. It’s Mr. Tijani Ben Jemaa, who wants to intervene. Mr. Tijani, please reactivate your mic. The floor is yours.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you very much, Aicha, and thank you all for this wonderful session. I have a question to Una. You spoke about the ownership of the data by the users themselves, but by these big companies that are collecting our data, using them, even without our consent. So we talk about the ownership and the control of the data by the users. I think you are thinking about Web3. That is a project that Henry and other people are working on. I asked Henry in a previous session, since this Web3 project is based on blockchain technology and blockchain technology consumes very, very huge quantity of energy, how this project can be feasible if we don’t solve this issue of energy consumption? Thank you.

Aicha Jeridi: Thank you, Tijani. Una, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Una Wang: Yeah. Thank you for the question. I think you have heard about the panel regarding Henry, who is one of my co-founder of Singapore Internet Governance Forum. And yeah, so a lot of people have the same concerns or the questions with you, like the Web3 is about blockchain or crypto. So this is something that is wrong because Web3.0 has already defined in 2006, it’s called the web of data. So the Sir Tim Berners-Lee who has invented HTTP have already defined what is Web3.0. It’s nothing related to the blockchain or crypto. So blockchain, like Bitcoin, has the value of the personal sovereignty of the finance. That’s a finance value representative. And if you are thinking about Web3.0, you should have data. decentralize the protocol, and you have the right side about the value, how you can monetize those personal data. Because we are talking about community-driven empowerment, it’s related to how we can let the community have the motivation to contribute and have the awareness about how they can get their data back. Now we are in the Web 2.0. Web 2.0 means all the websites, all the infrastructure built on TCP, IP, and HTTP. That leads to the data flow to the centralized platform, such as Meta or Twitter. So every people, we don’t have our own data ownership. That means in the era of the AI, the Chattopadhyay has used the public data size, about three trillion tokens, for training the AI system, and they are using our knowledge. They don’t give our benefit. And you don’t have your rights to know how they use your data. So in the Web 3.0, that is totally different because a lot of people have already got actions on that, such as Henry and I, and also the team, Bernice Lee, who invented the solid social link data, which is a decentralized protocol for all the users to own their data by the personal online pod. That means you can deploy this pod on your local device, on your local PC, on your local phone, or you can choose the different, like the cloud host service, like AWS or any other. But this is going to have the privacy preservation, and you are going to control. whether you want to authorize the organization or not. So we are building that in this way, called Web 3.0, it’s called a web of data, and people have the rights to share all the data, to know who are going to use and how to use, and whether you want to give the money to me, because I share the data, I share the value to the organization who wants to use my data. So we are using the different protocols, and also we are, of course, we have to use blockchain, because for the global payment, each country’s people have the rights to got the different, like their currency, this is more complex when you’re going to send the money to the different people. So the blockchain, like tokens, is one of the value of the backup datas. So you’re going to know what is Web 3.0, and what is Web 3.0. Web 3.0 is wrongly defined by Gavin Wood, because he is in the blockchain and the crypto, and he defined himself as the Web 3.0 father, of the father of the Web 3.0, but it’s totally different. So I think everyone should have the awareness, like what is the real Web 3.0, and we should get our data back in the AI era, because in the future, if you want to have a safe AI, or personal AI agent, you have to got your data back, and you have to deploy a small language model on your local device, combined with your personal data size. Yeah, so hopefully I answer your question. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much, Una. We’ll try to keep it short. We have 20 minutes, and I want to. use five minutes to take questions, then any other questions from the audience, then we go into last words, especially this is a focus on NRIs, and in those last words, I will start with Chelsea.

Aicha Jeridi: Yeah, we have a question from the floor from Mr. Yeng-Chu Chen. It’s a question and a comment. I’ll start by the question. So the question to all the panelists, how can we design regional data agreements to support cooperation without turning them into non-tariff or technical barriers to trade? This was the question, and all the panelists, feel free to answer. And then he commented, Bhutan use electronic identity system on blockchain. I guess it’s to react to the last intervention from the panelists. Every Bhutanese can own their data and the data ownership. That was all from the floor. Now we move to the question that he asked. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: So who wants to take that question? Or I’ll put you on the spot. Okay. I’ll hand the question over to Nancy.

Nancy Kanasa: So one of the ways I could think of is invest in infrastructure and digital literacy and create a probably regional data council for policy coordination and current cross-border data sharing agreement with safeguards.

Poncelet Ileleji: Okay. Beatriz.

Beatriz Costa Barbosa: No, just to add something that after the Brazilian data protection law was approved in 2018, I know that many Brazilian parliamentarians that were involved in the process of designing the law started traveling a lot in the region to talk to other parliamentary members or governments or authorities or regulators, or even with the civil society movement and organizations to share. what happened in Brazil, and mentioning the participatory process that we have when designing the bill. So I think that this kind of, it’s not a scholarship, but some kind of promoting exchanges among bodies and authorities and civil society members and representatives I think this is interesting to help building a regional context, because in Brazil, I mean, Brazil has many differences regarding our neighbors, but there are many things that are quite similar, and for sure I think that is the same in your region. Then we can take advantage of the mistakes and of the problems that we face during the development of the bill and in the implementation of the law that other countries may avoid if we share these experiences. So I think that would be, I think the idea of having councils together in different countries is a super interesting process, but even starting exchange and experience, and that’s why IGF is so important for that, because we’re exchanging experience here from all over the world. So I think it’s important to help build this regional consciousness regarding the importance of data protection.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much. Aicha, any?

Aicha Jeridi: No, no comments.

Poncelet Ileleji: Anybody from the audience? I’ll go to five. Five, four, okay.

Audience: Hi, everyone. My name is Abdelgeril Basharbon, so I’m coming from Chad, the national coordinator of IGF Chad. So I think that it is a great session, because this session talks about data governance. I think that is very key. I think that in Chad we are thinking now how to work, because in Chad the data protection… The protection act is managed by the National Cyber Security Agency. It’s under the Ministry of Security, not Ministry of ICT. Because last year, during the IGF, we talked a lot about that. People don’t know, the citizens don’t know that we have this kind of act. I think that we need to communicate more on that. So I think that for this year, we need to see how, not for the annual meeting, but how to do some workshop focused on that. And the local languages, we need to go like in village. Some cities that we see, because most of social media is used by people of rural area. Because they are using satellite, this is what we are seeing. So I think that they have WhatsApp group, that administrators don’t know how to deal. They don’t know the data protection act. So I think that this kind of thing that has been analysed, we need to go close to them, to marginalise people, people of rural area, to talk to them. If you do bad things, you can be an injustice on the court. So we need to tell them on that. I think that this is one of our focus this year. And we need to collaborate with other NRIs who have experience on that, and to impact our people. So, thank you so much.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Bashir. From the chat IGF, I think that sums up a lot on how we need to collaborate more as NRIs in this field of local data governance for global public good. Are there any other questions from the audience?

Audience: Kosi Amesinu from Benin. Firstly, this is a very good session. We were talking about data, local data, but we don’t have data centre. Where do I put the data? Where do I put it? We need data centre first, green data centre. And now, process to access to our data locally is very important. Let’s talk to Meta, TikTok, all of them, to come and build data center in Africa, put our data locally in our language also, if it’s possible, and let us check, use our data to train our internet, intelligent artificial process. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Kosi. I think you said it all about localization of having data centers built into digital sovereignty. I will now call on Chelsea to give her closing remarks. And as NRIs, what we can do in our communities, remember this is an NRI session, and we are at the bottom of the ladder within the internet governance initiatives, and I think this is a very important topic for all of us, and I would like Chelsea to give her closing comments. Thank you.

Chelsea Horne: Thank you very much, Poncelet, for such a wonderful session. From IGF USA, this is a very exciting session because it gives us lots of energy and ideas for our regional IGF later this year. So we’re very excited to continue the dialogue, and I think that one of the most important things is similar themes here to global IGF, which is the multi-stakeholder dialogue, and to make sure that we are bringing members from all different elements of the multi-stakeholder community, and having that meaningful stakeholder engagement is absolutely crucial for fostering both public trust, transparency towards these data governance and internet governance frameworks, and making sure that they are both robust and legitimate. So that’s something that we are going to be working on in particular, is having the continuing dialogue. hosting, and promoting these multi-stakeholder dialogues. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you, Chelsea. Nancy, your closing remarks?

Nancy Kanasa: From the PIRC-IGF, I think I would say that having ethical and human-centric governing approach like digital inclusion and also safeguard against exploitation is coming from the Pacific Island. You know, we are kind of like left behind in most of the things that we think that we are doing in regard to digital transformation.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you. Beatriz?

Beatriz Costa Barbosa: Yeah, we already have our Brazilian IGF this year before coming to Norway. And the topic of data governance and data protection is always present in the workshops that are proposed for our internet governance community in Brazil, which is very active and participative. And we are facing, I think, a new challenge in Brazil that something I think that is a topic that many other countries from the global south also discusses has to do with the question that our colleague from the BNAM mentioned, that has to do with digital sovereignty. I’m sorry. We are fostering from the civil society perspective a discussion and debating in Brazil that has to do with how do we control our data? How do we guarantee that data treatment is made in Brazil, respecting human rights in general, but also for our development? So one of the things that I would mention to the final comment that our colleague said here is that I would encourage you not only to invite TikTok or Meta. to build data centers in your country, but for your country, your companies, your government, to build a public infrastructure to deal with the data from the dependent citizens, because this is important for your digital sovereignty, and in a world that we are only sharing our data with global companies in a future that is not that far from us, and now we’re going to face many, many big problems. So we are fostering discussions in Brazil. I think that we have at the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee a working group that works with data protection as well. As I mentioned before, we had a seat in the Brazilian Council for Data Protection that is connected to the Brazilian authority, so we’ll keep moving on the discussion and happy always to share this with you. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you. Una?

Una Wang: Yeah, I totally agree with the panelists. So this is the first time I came to the IGF, and Singapore Internet Governance is quite new. We just are recognized by the UN IGF this year in January, so I attended different workshops and the conference. I saw the similar problems that encountered with the previous what we have been solving is that the audience just raised the questions. They don’t have the data center, and that means the centralized social media platform or any internet infrastructure cannot cover global salespeople’s data, and also they don’t have the rights to share or be represented in this current AI era. So we we really encourage every people from global source to see the new protocols that we don’t have to learn from the current like centralized platform, like you’re building your own data center or you’re collecting the data in a centralized way. You can do something that’s quite fascinating and use the frontier technologies to see you have the data ownership and you build your own data by your own protocol. That means no one can access unless you authorize your consent. So you can help those AI companies to train based on your own data size and some other peoples also can do this in this similar way. At the same time, you have the own data value and you will have monetize your own data. That’s the best way that can bring the wealth to the global source people by using your own local data and you can accumulate your own data size day by day. And in the future, you are the one who control the data and you are building your own value in the future. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you, Una. Ahmed, closing words.

Ahmed Fraag: Thank you again. I think in the North African IGF in the recent years, many countries of the North African have started to ignite the strategic value of the data governance. Egypt, for example, has taken concrete steps to establish a legal institutional foundation for data governance. And the personal data protection law has been released in 2020 after public and community consultation. Also, the National Digital Strategy of Egypt includes the strong components of data governance. And I think my final words will be, it is very important to be ready and continue enhancing the frameworks. based on the updates on technology we saw every day. And then, so we have to be flexible, not strike on the current frameworks. No, no, we have to be ready and continue our enhancement in this framework. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, all my panelists. And before I close this session, as I said, this Local Data Governance for Global Public Good session was organized, is an NRI session, and was organized by NRIs. It took a lot, months of planning. So I want to thank all the NRIs that planned this, Singapore IGF, IGF USA, IGF Brazil, Zambia Youth IGF, the Gambia IGF, Portugal IGF, Colombia Youth IGF, Brazil IGF, I’ve said it before, Japan IGF, Lebanon IGF, Benin Youth IGF, Colombia IGF, and Argentina IGF. And I also want to thank my brilliant panelists. I know today’s the end of the session, but please feel free to contact them. These are experts in this field. We have two government representatives. We have an academic who is from the USA IGF. We also have Una, who just started the Singapore IGF. And it’s good we have new, we have old, and we have Brazil, who we learn a lot from within what they are doing. Aicha, thank you very much for the online moderation. And can we give a round of applause for our panelists? Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective data governance

Speakers

– Ahmed Fraag
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa
– Chelsea Horne

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, private sector, civil society, and technical community is essential

Brazilian Internet Steering Committee has 30+ years experience in multistakeholder approach for data governance

Mechanisms must not force undue burden on people to manage their own data security and privacy

Summary

All speakers agree that effective data governance requires meaningful engagement across all stakeholder groups including governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities. They emphasize that collaborative approaches are fundamental to building trust and legitimacy in governance frameworks.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Data governance frameworks must balance innovation with protection

Speakers

– Ahmed Fraag
– Chelsea Horne
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Responsible data governance creates ecosystems where data serves people and supports innovation while protecting personal data

Standardized consent language and icons can reduce cognitive load while empowering users with choice

Brazil’s data protection law adopted principle-based structure enabling adaptability in implementation

Summary

Speakers consistently argue that data governance should not be overly restrictive but should enable innovation and public good while maintaining strong protections for personal data and user rights.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Community-driven approaches and local contextualization are crucial

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Nancy Kanasa
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Bottom-up governance ensures communities control what data to share and how it’s used

Digital frameworks must be adapted to fit cultural, institutional, and infrastructural contexts of Pacific nations

Public participation through consultations and hearings is crucial for developing contextually appropriate laws

Summary

All speakers emphasize that effective data governance must be community-driven and adapted to local contexts, respecting cultural values and institutional realities rather than imposing one-size-fits-all solutions.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of inclusion and preventing marginalization in digital systems. Una focuses on linguistic inclusion while Nancy addresses broader digital inclusion, but both argue that exclusion from digital systems leads to permanent disadvantage.

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Languages not represented in digital systems risk disappearing from future global conversations

Building resilient data governance requires leadership, strategic thinking, and commitment to inclusion

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Development

Both speakers advocate for user empowerment and control over data, emphasizing transparency and user agency. Chelsea focuses on interface design for informed consent while Una proposes decentralized ownership models.

Speakers

– Chelsea Horne
– Una Wang

Arguments

User-friendly interfaces should clearly explain who collects what data, why, and how it will be used

Community-driven approach through LanguageDAO allows speakers to own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the urgency of addressing data governance challenges in the context of rapidly advancing technology, and the importance of ensuring all voices are represented in global governance discussions.

Speakers

– Ahmed Fraag
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Data governance is critical priority due to AI and emerging technologies requiring responsible, transparent, rights-based use of data

Government participation in global platforms like IGF is critical for Pacific voices to be heard

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Need for local infrastructure before meaningful data governance

Speakers

– Audience
– Una Wang
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Data centers and local infrastructure are needed before meaningful data governance can be implemented

Over 7,000 languages exist globally but current speech recognition covers only 100 languages at most

Pacific nations face fragmentation of data systems creating silos between government agencies and communities

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus between audience members and panelists that infrastructure limitations are a fundamental barrier to effective data governance. This practical concern bridged different perspectives and highlighted that technical infrastructure is prerequisite to policy frameworks.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Data monetization and community benefit sharing

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Community-driven approach through LanguageDAO allows speakers to own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data

Brazil’s data protection law adopted principle-based structure enabling adaptability in implementation

Explanation

Unexpected alignment emerged between Una’s commercial approach to data monetization and Beatriz’s regulatory framework perspective, both recognizing that communities should benefit from their data contributions rather than only large platforms profiting.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around multi-stakeholder collaboration, community-driven governance, balancing innovation with protection, and the need for local contextualization. Speakers consistently emphasized inclusion, transparency, and user empowerment across different technical and regulatory approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles with complementary rather than conflicting approaches. The agreement spans technical, regulatory, and community perspectives, suggesting robust foundation for collaborative action on data governance frameworks that serve global public good while respecting local contexts and community sovereignty.

Different viewpoints

Definition and implementation of Web3 technology

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Tijani Ben Jemaa

Arguments

Community-driven approach through LanguageDAO allows speakers to own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data

Blockchain technology for Web3 raises concerns about energy consumption feasibility

Summary

Una advocates for Web3 as a decentralized data ownership solution using blockchain for global payments, while Tijani questions the feasibility due to massive energy consumption. Una clarifies that Web3.0 is about data decentralization (not crypto), but still acknowledges using blockchain for payments.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Approach to building local data infrastructure

Speakers

– Audience (Benin)
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Data centers and local infrastructure are needed before meaningful data governance can be implemented

Public participation through consultations and hearings is crucial for developing contextually appropriate laws

Summary

The Benin representative emphasizes the need for physical infrastructure (data centers) first, suggesting engagement with big tech companies, while Beatriz advocates for building public infrastructure and government-led initiatives for digital sovereignty rather than relying on global companies.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Role of global tech companies in local data governance

Speakers

– Audience (Benin)
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Data centers and local infrastructure are needed before meaningful data governance can be implemented

Public participation through consultations and hearings is crucial for developing contextually appropriate laws

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was disagreement on whether to invite global companies (Meta, TikTok) to build local infrastructure versus building independent public infrastructure. This reveals a fundamental tension between pragmatic infrastructure needs and digital sovereignty concerns that wasn’t anticipated as a major point of contention.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts arising around implementation approaches rather than fundamental principles. Key areas of tension included: technical solutions vs. institutional approaches, reliance on global companies vs. digital sovereignty, and infrastructure-first vs. governance-first priorities.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers shared common goals of inclusive, community-driven data governance but differed on pathways to achieve these goals. The disagreements reflect practical challenges of implementing data governance in diverse contexts rather than fundamental philosophical differences. This suggests potential for collaborative solutions that combine different approaches rather than requiring choosing between competing visions.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of inclusion and preventing marginalization in digital systems. Una focuses on linguistic inclusion while Nancy addresses broader digital inclusion, but both argue that exclusion from digital systems leads to permanent disadvantage.

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Languages not represented in digital systems risk disappearing from future global conversations

Building resilient data governance requires leadership, strategic thinking, and commitment to inclusion

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Development

Both speakers advocate for user empowerment and control over data, emphasizing transparency and user agency. Chelsea focuses on interface design for informed consent while Una proposes decentralized ownership models.

Speakers

– Chelsea Horne
– Una Wang

Arguments

User-friendly interfaces should clearly explain who collects what data, why, and how it will be used

Community-driven approach through LanguageDAO allows speakers to own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the urgency of addressing data governance challenges in the context of rapidly advancing technology, and the importance of ensuring all voices are represented in global governance discussions.

Speakers

– Ahmed Fraag
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Data governance is critical priority due to AI and emerging technologies requiring responsible, transparent, rights-based use of data

Government participation in global platforms like IGF is critical for Pacific voices to be heard

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Key takeaways

Data governance requires multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities to be effective

Community-driven approaches are essential for inclusive data governance, particularly for linguistic diversity and indigenous data sovereignty

User empowerment through clear, granular consent mechanisms and user-friendly interfaces is crucial for meaningful data control

Regional cooperation and experience sharing among countries, especially in the Global South, can help develop context-sensitive frameworks

Digital infrastructure, including local data centers and improved digital literacy, are prerequisites for effective data governance implementation

Principle-based legal frameworks that allow for adaptability are more effective than rigid regulatory structures

Public participation through consultations and hearings is essential for developing legitimate and contextually appropriate data protection laws

National and Regional Internet Governance Forums (NRIs/IGFs) play a critical role in facilitating dialogue and knowledge sharing on data governance issues

Resolutions and action items

NRIs should organize workshops focused on data protection awareness in local languages, particularly targeting rural and marginalized communities

Countries should invest in building public data infrastructure rather than relying solely on global companies for data centers

Regional data councils should be established to support policy coordination and cross-border data sharing agreements

NRIs should continue facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogues on data governance at national and regional levels

Experience sharing programs should be developed between countries that have implemented data protection laws and those developing frameworks

Capacity building initiatives should be implemented to improve digital literacy and awareness of data protection rights

Unresolved issues

How to balance innovation encouragement with strict data protection without creating trade barriers

Energy consumption concerns related to blockchain-based decentralized data systems remain unaddressed

Specific mechanisms for ensuring meaningful consent in low digital literacy environments need further development

Technical implementation details for community-controlled data governance systems require more exploration

Funding and resource allocation for building local data infrastructure in developing countries remains unclear

Standardization of regional data governance frameworks while respecting local contexts needs further discussion

Suggested compromises

Adopt principle-based rather than prescriptive regulatory frameworks to allow flexibility while maintaining protection standards

Implement granular consent mechanisms that balance user control with usability to avoid information overload

Develop hybrid approaches that combine global standards with local adaptations for context-sensitive implementation

Create phased implementation strategies that allow for gradual capacity building while establishing basic protections

Balance centralized and decentralized approaches by building public infrastructure while enabling community control

Use standardized icons and simplified language for data permissions while allowing for local customization

Responsible data governance is not about regulation, it’s not just about data regulation. It is about creating an ecosystem where data-served people empower communities and support innovation.

Speaker

Ahmed Fraag

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by shifting focus from restrictive regulatory approaches to empowerment-based governance. It introduces the concept of data governance as ecosystem building rather than mere compliance, which is particularly insightful for Global South contexts where innovation and development are crucial.

Impact

This comment set the foundational tone for the entire discussion, establishing that the session would focus on empowerment rather than restriction. It influenced subsequent speakers to emphasize community-driven approaches and positive uses of data governance.

It’s not just about inclusion, it’s about sovereignty… Each community decides what data to share, how it’s used, and under what conditions.

Speaker

Una Wang

Reason

This comment introduces the critical distinction between mere inclusion and true sovereignty, challenging the common assumption that simply including more languages or communities in digital systems is sufficient. The concept of community-controlled data governance through LanguageDAO represents a paradigm shift from top-down to bottom-up data governance.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from technical inclusion to fundamental questions of power and control. It introduced the concept of decentralized autonomous organizations for language communities, which influenced later discussions about indigenous data sovereignty and community empowerment.

It is important to ensure that any mechanisms implemented do not force undue burden of responsibility on people to manage their own data security and privacy. This is part of building in privacy and security measures by design.

Speaker

Chelsea Horne

Reason

This comment addresses a critical paradox in data governance – how to empower users without overwhelming them. It challenges the common approach of shifting responsibility to individuals and instead advocates for systemic design solutions, which is particularly relevant for contexts with varying digital literacy levels.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from user empowerment to user protection, introducing the concept of ‘privacy by design’ and influencing the conversation toward balanced approaches that don’t burden users while still providing them with meaningful control.

Building resilient and inclusive data governance in the Pacific is not just a technical goal. It is a social, cultural, and institutional journey.

Speaker

Nancy Kanasa

Reason

This comment fundamentally reframes data governance from a technical implementation challenge to a holistic transformation process. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of technical, social, and cultural factors, which is crucial for understanding why technical solutions alone often fail in diverse cultural contexts.

Impact

This comment broadened the scope of the discussion beyond technical frameworks to encompass cultural and institutional dimensions. It reinforced the importance of context-sensitive approaches and influenced the conversation toward more holistic, culturally-grounded solutions.

I would encourage you not only to invite TikTok or Meta to build data centers in your country, but for your country, your companies, your government, to build a public infrastructure to deal with the data from the dependent citizens, because this is important for your digital sovereignty.

Speaker

Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Reason

This comment challenges the common assumption that partnering with global tech companies is the solution to data localization needs. It introduces the concept of public digital infrastructure as an alternative to corporate dependency, which is a provocative stance on digital sovereignty and national autonomy.

Impact

This comment responded directly to an audience question about data centers and shifted the conversation from corporate partnerships to public infrastructure development. It reinforced themes of sovereignty and self-determination that had been building throughout the discussion.

Web3.0 has already defined in 2006, it’s called the web of data… It’s nothing related to the blockchain or crypto… blockchain, like Bitcoin, has the value of the personal sovereignty of the finance.

Speaker

Una Wang

Reason

This comment corrects a fundamental misconception about Web3.0, distinguishing between the original concept of a ‘web of data’ and the blockchain-centric interpretation. This clarification is crucial for understanding decentralized data governance approaches and challenges common assumptions about emerging technologies.

Impact

This comment directly addressed technical confusion raised by an audience member and provided important clarification that helped ground the discussion in accurate technical understanding. It demonstrated the importance of precise terminology in data governance discussions.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed the discussion from a conventional regulatory-focused conversation to a more nuanced exploration of empowerment-based, community-driven data governance. The comments built upon each other to establish several key themes: the shift from regulation to ecosystem building, the importance of sovereignty over mere inclusion, the need for systemic rather than individual solutions, the cultural and institutional dimensions of governance, and the importance of public infrastructure over corporate dependency. The discussion evolved from abstract policy concepts to concrete, contextual solutions that acknowledge the diverse needs and capabilities of Global South communities. The interplay between these insights created a comprehensive framework for understanding data governance as a multifaceted challenge requiring technical, social, cultural, and institutional solutions rather than purely regulatory approaches.

How can we design context-sensitive data governance frameworks that uphold global standards of fairness and accountability while respecting local values, infrastructure limitations, and digital literacy levels, especially in countries like Bangladesh?

Speaker

Mohammad Abdulhakonu (Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum)

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of adapting global data protection standards to local contexts in the Global South, considering limited resources and varying digital literacy levels.

How can Web3 projects based on blockchain technology be feasible if the energy consumption issue of blockchain is not solved?

Speaker

Tijani Ben Jemaa

Explanation

This raises concerns about the environmental sustainability of blockchain-based solutions for data ownership and governance.

How can we design regional data agreements to support cooperation without turning them into non-tariff or technical barriers to trade?

Speaker

Yeng-Chu Chen

Explanation

This addresses the balance between regional data cooperation and avoiding protectionist measures that could hinder international trade.

How can NRIs effectively communicate data protection laws to rural and marginalized communities who use social media but are unaware of data protection regulations?

Speaker

Abdelgeril Basharbon (IGF Chad)

Explanation

This highlights the need for grassroots education and awareness campaigns about data rights in local languages and contexts.

How can African countries establish local data centers and negotiate with global tech companies to store African data locally while maintaining data sovereignty?

Speaker

Kosi Amesinu (Benin)

Explanation

This addresses the infrastructure requirements for data localization and digital sovereignty in Africa.

How can countries build public infrastructure for data governance rather than relying solely on global companies for data centers and storage?

Speaker

Beatriz Costa Barbosa (implied from her response)

Explanation

This explores the concept of public digital infrastructure as an alternative to private sector dominance in data storage and processing.

How can data governance frameworks remain flexible and adaptive to rapidly evolving technologies while maintaining regulatory effectiveness?

Speaker

Ahmed Fraag

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of creating regulatory frameworks that can keep pace with technological advancement without becoming obsolete.

How can Pacific Island nations overcome data fragmentation and silos between government agencies, civil society, and communities?

Speaker

Nancy Kanasa (Pacific IGF)

Explanation

This addresses specific challenges in small island developing states regarding institutional coordination and data sharing.

Summary

This discussion focused on the urgency of e-waste management and its policy implications, exploring global frameworks and sustainable solutions. The session was moderated by Saba Tiku Beyene and featured speakers from diverse regions including representatives from the private sector, civil society, ITU, and Smart Africa. The panelists emphasized that e-waste represents both a significant challenge and an opportunity, particularly for developing countries where proper management could create bankable projects and economic benefits.

Hossam El Gamal highlighted Egypt’s situation as a major e-waste producer in Africa, generating 370,000 tons annually, with most waste handled by the informal sector using unsafe methods. He stressed the need for strengthened Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks, capacity building, and proper legislation enforcement. Jasmine Ko from Hong Kong discussed the importance of consumer behavior change and local adaptation of global solutions, sharing examples of mobile recycling stations to address logistical challenges in urban environments.

Emmanuel Niyikora from ITU outlined the organization’s work on EPR frameworks with countries like Rwanda and Zambia, emphasizing the need for international knowledge exchange and South-South cooperation. He highlighted that only 32% of the 62 million tons of global e-waste is formally collected and recycled annually. The discussion also explored how data-driven technologies like AI and IoT can support monitoring and enforcement of e-waste policies, with speakers noting that “we can’t manage what we can’t measure.”

Key recommendations included implementing sustainability by design, fostering multi-stakeholder collaboration, supporting youth innovation, and developing digital infrastructure for traceability. The panelists concluded that addressing e-waste requires a consultative approach involving both public and private sectors, with policies that can contribute to multiple Sustainable Development Goals while creating circular economy opportunities.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **E-waste as both challenge and opportunity**: Speakers emphasized that while e-waste represents a significant environmental and health challenge (with over 62 million tons generated annually and only 20% formally recycled), it also presents economic opportunities through job creation, circular economy principles, and bankable projects that can contribute to multiple UN Sustainable Development Goals.

– **Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks and policy development**: Multiple speakers discussed the importance of EPR policies that make manufacturers responsible for the entire lifecycle of their products, from design to disposal. Examples were shared from Egypt, Rwanda, Zambia, and other countries, highlighting the need for comprehensive legislation and enforcement mechanisms.

– **Role of technology and data-driven solutions**: The discussion explored how AI, IoT, and digital product passports can support e-waste monitoring and management. Speakers emphasized that “we can’t manage what we can’t measure” and highlighted the need for digital infrastructure to make e-waste traceable and create accountability in circular economy systems.

– **Multi-stakeholder collaboration and localization**: Participants stressed the importance of involving all stakeholders – governments, private sector, civil society, and youth – in developing and implementing e-waste policies. They emphasized adapting global standards and frameworks to local contexts, considering different user behaviors, infrastructure, and cultural factors.

– **Consumer awareness and behavior change**: The discussion addressed the critical need for public awareness campaigns and incentivizing consumers to participate in proper e-waste disposal, including examples of innovative collection methods like mobile recycling stations and smartphone apps to facilitate proper disposal.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore urgent e-waste management challenges and policy solutions from a global perspective, sharing best practices across different regions and examining how various stakeholders can collaborate to create sustainable, circular economy approaches to electronic waste management.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative, and solution-oriented tone throughout. Speakers were constructive and knowledge-sharing, with each participant building upon others’ contributions. The tone was urgent yet optimistic, acknowledging serious challenges while emphasizing opportunities for innovation and positive change. The session concluded on an encouraging note with actionable takeaways and calls for continued collaboration.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Saba Tiku Beyene** – Moderator, former MAG member, currently serving as junior advisor at the Africa Union office, representing women’s movement “Defend knives, not guns”

– **Hossam El Gamal** – Private sector representative from Africa, MAG member (current and former for three years), focuses on industry solutions and applications

– **Jasmine Ko** – Co-founder of Hong Kong Youth IGF, former project lead and researcher on eco-Internet initiative, specializes in sustainable consumption intersecting with the Internet

– **Participant** – Youth ambassador for the Internet Society, works in digital infrastructure helping medium and large companies with data infrastructure, business intelligence and sustainability across automotive, fintech and agribusiness industries

– **Athanase Bahizire** – Online moderator from the Democratic Republic of Congo

– **Thelma Quaye** – Works at Smart Africa leading digital infrastructure, digital skills and gender matters

– **Emmanuel Niyikora** – Program officer at ITU Regional Office for Africa based in Senegal, coordinates capacity development and youth-related activities, works on extended producer responsibility efforts

**Additional speakers:**

– **Audience (Leandro Navarro)** – Representative from an NGO, member of ITU study group five question seven on circular economy, waste and supply chain, former reporter and current expert

– **Nicholas** – Online participant who submitted a question (mentioned by the online moderator)

# Summary: E-Waste Management and Policy Implications Discussion

## Introduction and Context

This discussion was moderated by Saba Tiku Beyene, former MAG member and junior advisor at the Africa Union office. The panel included Hossam El Gamal, a private sector representative from Africa and current MAG member; Jasmine Ko, co-founder of Hong Kong Youth IGF; Emmanuel Niyikora, programme officer at ITU Regional Office for Africa; Thelma Quaye from Smart Africa; and a participant working with the Internet Society. The session also featured online participation, including contributions from Athanase Bahizire as online moderator and audience member Leandro Navarro from an NGO and member of ITU study group five.

The discussion explored e-waste management challenges and policy solutions, examining how global frameworks can be adapted to local contexts while creating sustainable solutions.

## The Scale of the E-Waste Challenge

The Internet Society participant presented concerning statistics about the global e-waste crisis, noting that “the global e-waste system is mostly blind” with over 62 million metric tonnes of e-waste generated annually, yet only 32% formally collected and recycled. This measurement problem was highlighted with the observation that “we can’t manage what we can’t measure.”

Hossam El Gamal provided regional context, explaining that Egypt generates an estimated 370,000 tonnes of e-waste annually, with projections showing increases due to rapid technological adoption and shorter product lifecycles. He noted that most of this waste is currently handled by the informal sector using unsafe methods, creating environmental and health risks while missing economic opportunities.

## E-Waste as Economic Opportunity

A key theme emerged when Hossam El Gamal reframed the discussion by stating that “e-waste is a challenge, a risk, but is really an opportunity.” He argued that e-waste management represents “bankable projects” that developing countries should actively pursue, emphasizing that proper management could transform challenges into profitable opportunities.

Thelma Quaye supported this perspective, highlighting that e-waste management can create value and drive innovation. The speakers noted that effective e-waste management addresses multiple UN Sustainable Development Goals, including those related to sustainable consumption, health, water, decent work, sustainable cities, and climate action.

## Extended Producer Responsibility Frameworks

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) emerged as a cornerstone policy approach. Hossam El Gamal advocated for “comprehensive regulations focusing on strengthening Extended Producer Responsibility with clear mandates for manufacturers, importers and retailers.” He cited Egypt’s Law 202 in 2020, which treats e-waste as hazardous waste with specific collection, recycling and disposal guidelines through authorized facilities, and noted Egypt’s membership in the Basel Convention.

Emmanuel Niyikora provided an international perspective, explaining that ITU works with countries to develop EPR frameworks while promoting international knowledge exchange. He mentioned ITU’s work facilitating collaboration between countries including Nigeria, South Africa, Colombia, and India. He emphasized that effective EPR policies require “consultative approaches involving both public and private sectors, including youth for innovation.”

## Technology and Data-Driven Solutions

The role of technology in e-waste management generated significant discussion. The Internet Society participant argued that “data-driven technologies like AI, IoT and digital product passports are essential tools” for effective e-waste management, emphasizing that “digital infrastructure investment is needed beyond just policies to make e-waste traceable and accountable.”

Leandro Navarro from the audience discussed ongoing work to “develop open source implementations of digital passports for electronics,” specifically mentioning github.com/reuse. He emphasized that without open source implementations, smaller organizations cannot effectively participate in innovation.

The discussion identified several technological applications: AI for predictive analytics, IoT for real-time tracking, and digital product passports for lifecycle management. However, speakers acknowledged that technology alone is insufficient without proper infrastructure investment and supportive policy frameworks.

## Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration and Local Adaptation

Strong consensus emerged around the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration. Jasmine Ko emphasized that “multi-stakeholder initiatives involving industry, government and civil society are crucial for effective e-waste management.”

The localization challenge proved particularly important. Jasmine Ko raised questions about adaptation: “How do we make sure that we are able to adopt and really create, design something that fits into the community with different user behaviour, density, and language?” She provided a concrete example from Hong Kong, where traditional collection centers failed because working hours clashed with collection times. This led to innovative solutions including 18 district recycling branches and mobile recycling trucks.

This example illustrated how policies can fail without consideration of local contexts and user behaviors, demonstrating the need for flexible implementation of global standards.

## Consumer Behavior and Awareness

Consumer awareness emerged as a fundamental challenge. Hossam El Gamal identified a “huge awareness gap among consumers regarding proper e-waste disposal and recycling processes.”

Jasmine Ko took a more systemic approach, arguing that consumer behavior changes require proper incentives and infrastructure support. Her Hong Kong example demonstrated how policy design must accommodate actual user needs rather than ideal behaviors.

## Specific Initiatives and Examples

Several concrete examples were discussed:

– Egypt’s Dr. Wee app for e-waste collection

– Hong Kong’s mobile recycling truck solution addressing working hour conflicts

– ITU’s knowledge exchange programs between developing countries

– Open source digital passport implementations through platforms like github.com/reuse

## Challenges and Questions

The discussion identified several ongoing challenges:

– The need to formalize informal e-waste sectors while maintaining livelihoods

– Balancing global standards with local implementation needs

– Ensuring data privacy in digital tracking solutions

– Addressing emerging issues like cryptographically obsolete IoT devices (raised by audience member Nicholas)

## Key Recommendations

The discussion generated several recommendations:

– Countries should seek and replicate existing successful e-waste management projects

– Investment in digital infrastructure beyond just policies to enable traceability

– Development of global standards for digital product passports

– Continued international knowledge exchange programs

– Open source implementations to ensure accessibility for smaller organizations

– Consumer education on proper e-waste disposal

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated broad agreement on fundamental approaches to e-waste management, including the importance of EPR frameworks, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and technology-driven solutions. The conversation successfully reframed e-waste from purely an environmental burden to an economic opportunity requiring coordinated policy, technology, and behavioral interventions.

Key areas of consensus included the need for better measurement and tracking systems, the importance of adapting global standards to local contexts, and the potential for e-waste management to contribute to sustainable development goals. The emphasis on youth engagement and South-South cooperation suggests promising directions for future development, while unresolved questions around emerging technologies and informal sector integration indicate areas requiring continued attention.

Saba Tiku Beyene: I’m here on behalf of the women’s movement Defend knives, not guns. Making a difference in the world. I’m a former mag member and currently serving as a junior advisor at the Africa union office and I will be moderating this session. So this session we will be discussing the urgency of e-waste management and its policy implications. We will explore different global frameworks such as ITUs or international telecommunications union EPR principles as well as different national legislations promoting sustainable e-waste management within states. We shall also explore the role of different actors including policy makers, IC device producers, civil society and the individual users in fostering sustainability as well. Our distinguished speakers of course will share their best practices from diverse regions on how digital innovations can really support e-waste reduction as well as circular economy principles and their real world impacts. So saying this, let’s quickly meet our speakers and I will ask each one of them to briefly introduce themselves. So I will start with online speakers if they have joined. First we have Emmanuel. So I will go ahead with our on-site speakers and I will first start with Hossam.

Hossam El Gamal: Hossam El Gamal, I’m a private sector representative from Africa. I am currently a mag member and I used to be a mag member for three years before and I focus mainly on industry for solutions and applications. Thank you.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much Hossam, thank you for joining us.

Jasmine Ko: And we have Jasmine. Thank you for having me here, this is Jasmine Koh from Hong Kong. So I have a passion on sustainable consumption and intersecting with the Internet, so I’m here and now currently I’m a co-founder of Hong Kong Youth IGF. I was a former project lead and researcher on eco-Internet in that initiative. So the reason that I’m being here is to bring some Asia perspective, good case practices and also how my former research experience could give an insight from a border sustainable carbon footprint measurement methodology into UA. So that’s why I’m here. Thank you.

Participant: Thank you very much. Thank you Sabah. Hi everyone. My name is Hossam El Muraie. I am currently a youth ambassador for the Internet Society and I work in the digital infrastructure. I help medium and large size companies basically with their data infrastructure, with business intelligence and also with sustainability. I’m deeply engaged with sustainability. I worked in diverse industry, automotive, fintech and currently the agribusiness where we are helping industries manage their energy monitoring and working as well on prediction. So happy to be here today.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much. Glad to have you all here. And then I will go ahead and give the floor to our online moderator and our rapporteur to briefly also introduce themselves.

Athanase Bahizire: Greetings everyone. Can you hear? Yes. Thank you so much. My name is Thomas Olsen Aarheim from the Democratic Republic of Congo and I will be helping with online moderation here and happy to be here with you. Thank you.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you, Athanas. We have Dina as our online moderator. Dina, are you with us? Okay.

Athanase Bahizire: Hey, Sabah. We can proceed for now. Thank you.

Saba Tiku Beyene: All right. All right. So thank you to all of you. Now let’s dive deep into our discussion. I will now invite each of our speakers to respond to a question which is tailored to their area of expertise. So you will have maximum up to five minutes so that we have a space for Q&A. And then we will have a Q&A session. So please feel free to ask your questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I will now hand over theですか to both of you to start your question and then we will have Q&A. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Hossam El Gamal: Thank you. Thank you. Well, e-Waste is a very interesting topic. Because from one end it represents clear challenge, especially in developing countries. But at the same time it does represent opportunity in the same time. So with proper actions we can easily turn the challenge into opportunity and even profit for some. In order to be able to handle waste management, we always need to start with awareness. And then we need to have capacity building for the right people that are going to handle e-Waste. And we need incentivized legislation or policies that would encourage corporates providing and producing electronics to do the post-implementation support and to recycle or to change or to dismantle properly their goods. And finally, we need to have clear regulations that would be respected in the way they are going to handle the e-Waste. I will give you, for example, in Egypt, this is my country, Egypt is one of the major producers of e-Waste annually in Africa. With an estimated 370,000 tons and projected to increase further due to rapid technological adoption and shorter product life cycle. Generally this sector is really dominated by informal side. Large portion of e-Waste is still managed by the informal sector. Garbage dealers, waste collectors, etc. While they do recover some valuable material, their practice often involves crude and unsafe methods. Example, open burning or acid leaching, leading to severe environmental pollution and health risk for workers and surrounding communities. We had a legislation in 2020, Legislation Law 202, for the e-Waste as hazardous waste and with specific conditions, providing guidelines for collection, recycling and disposal through authorized factories under the Ministry of Environment. And also we have import restriction, a restriction to import used electronics older than five years old is completely prohibited and it is completely prohibited to import e-Waste. Egypt is also a member of Basel Convention, which controls the transboundary movement of hazardous waste, including e-Waste. But the fact is, we have limited formal infrastructure. Despite the regulations, the formal collection and recycling of infrastructure remain very limited. Only a small percentage of generated e-Waste is formally collected and recycled, with the majority ending up in uncontrolled landfills or being informally processed. And there is a huge awareness gap, lack of public awareness among Egyptian households regarding proper e-Waste disposal and recycling processes. Many consumers store old electronics or dispose them with regular trash. There is, from another perspective, emerging initiatives. Some initiatives are such as Dr. Wee, which uses a smartphone app to incentivize e-Waste collection and facilitate proper dismantling and sorting. So what we need is, we need to build a true sustainable and people-centered e-Waste management system in Egypt. A comprehensive set of regulations and policies needed, focusing on key areas. So strengthening and enforcing extended producer responsibilities, EPR, is very important. With clear mandates to implement robust EPR schemes that legally mandate manufacturers, importers and retailers to take responsibility. Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos

Saba Tiku Beyene: Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos

Jasmine Ko: Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos So I’ll give the floor back to Sabah.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you. Thank you very much, Jasmine, for that, for your wonderful intervention. Indeed also for mentioning about the multi-stakeholder initiatives and how the industry itself can support this, can strengthen this. And also I mentioned some examples coming from Hong Kong. And also, yes, as you said, we need more local empowerment opportunities. So I will now go ahead with our interventions from the online speakers. We have Thelma from Smart Africa. Thelma, I will give you the floor to first briefly introduce yourself to the floor. And then I will go ahead with my question, which is from Smart Africa’s perspective as a leading international organization in the digital space. What best practices from different regions can really inform the development of globally aligned digital policies when it comes to e-waste management and how can this be adopted to local context? Over to you.

Thelma Quaye: Thank you. Thank you very much. And once again, my apologies. I think I joined in a bit late. So by way of introduction, my name is Thelma. And within Smart Africa, I lead the digital infrastructure, digital skills as well as gender matters. And maybe for the purpose of those who do not know Smart Africa, we are a pan-African organization and our focus really is on building a single digital market through a multi-stakeholder approach. We have a membership of about 40 countries and over 60 private companies. Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much, Thelma, for your interventions. Indeed, you mentioned some of the examples led by Congo, as well as some of the initiatives in Romania, and also some of the best practices, which is first to embed US into accessibility, and also promoting reuse, which can also generate job as well as economic growth, and also strengthening the cross-regional collaboration, which is important. And thank you again for that. I’ll now go ahead and give the floor to our online speaker, Emmanuel, thank you very much for joining us. First, I would like you to briefly introduce yourself, and then reflect upon, given from your experience working within the ITU, which is the International Telecommunication Union, we know that ITU has been making a lot of effort to address in US, so how can governments as well as regulatory bodies can strengthen the digital policies such as the extended producer responsibility, or EPR, and the right to repair and to ensure sustainable US management. Over to you.

Emmanuel Niyikora: Thank you so much, Sabah. Good morning, everyone. Sorry, apologies for joining a bit late. I got confused of the time. Sorry for that, and happy that I’m able to be part of this very interesting discussion. Yeah, my name is, as Sabah said, I’m called Emmanuel Nikora. I’m a program officer at ITU, Regional Office for Africa. I’m based in Senegal, the ITU office that cover the West Africa. But in my work streams, I also work on programs that addresses the issues of US, especially the extended producer responsibility efforts with countries. and I also coordinate capacitance case development, the youth-related activities at ITU. So ITU, I think, has been introduced by Samba. ITU is a United Nations specialized agency for digital technologies. It’s a member-driven organization. We have 194 member states and also plus 1,000 technical sector, academia and international organization member states. So when it comes to e-waste, e-waste is one of the fastest-growing waste streams globally for reasons that I think we all know with the growing technology. According to the global e-waste monitor, we are currently generating over 62 million tons annually of e-waste. So then when we look at, we have 32%, which is formally collected and recycled. So which means the remaining 78 remain unmanaged and resulting in polluting our land, air, water and causing severe health risks in the process. So we know the uptake of mobile phones and the laptops. So behind every discarded phone and laptops, laptops are a hidden cost. We can ask ourselves when we discard our phones and our laptops, where do they go? I think most of us, we don’t know what happens after we discard our phones and our laptops. So that’s the problem that we need to address. So this unchecked or unaddressed growth of e-waste poses significant threats to our environment. But this crisis also presents an opportunity to transition from traditional oil and air to a circular economy where electronic products are designed, used and recycled more sustainably. So that’s where the ITU has been working with countries to work on what we call extended producer responsibility frameworks and policies. So we’ve been working with countries like Rwanda and Zambia to develop this extended producer responsibility work streams. We are also now initiating a project that is focusing on international knowledge exchange where we bring countries together to learn from each other and strengthen their e-waste regulatory framework. So this international exchange program is a new one and it is very interesting where we have two countries in Africa, Nigeria and South Africa. And then we have other countries like Colombia, India that we work together to learn from each other. So this is a part of a global South cooperation effort. The project will promote exchange of best practices and lessons learned on extended producer responsibility, sustainable financing and stakeholder engagement strategies for e-waste management. So through study tours, there will be study tours in Africa. We will have a study tour in Pretoria and Joburg where there is a recycling company to run what’s being done there. So sharing lessons and that will result in developing a policy toolkit for extended producer responsibility. So the initiative aims to equip African policy makers and industry stakeholders because this will involve the public and industry stakeholders. So with the tools to be inclusive and environmentally sound, economically and viable economic systems. So this initiative aligns with the work of ITU on creating a cycle economy for electronics. So this is not a lot I could share for ITU. So extended producer responsibility aims to give the responsibility to the producers, you know, right from when the design of the product, not really burden the government to take responsibility of the e-waste management. So it should be a collective effort and giving the responsibility to the producers right from the design to take into account the recycling and disposal of the electronic waste. So this will create again a cycle economy and create jobs. But of course, we know that when you add the responsibility to producers, sometimes it ends up coming to the users, to the consumers. That’s why this policy needs, again, a consultative efforts between different public organizations, public institutions and the government and the private producers.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you so much, Emmanuel. I would have to cut you because of…

Emmanuel Niyikora: Okay, no, it’s fine. Yeah, I was just going to mention the involvement of youth because we are also working to support the youth that have initiatives to contribute to these efforts of cycle economy and the recycling of used products. So, yeah, that was my final contribution. Thank you so much and back to you, Sabah.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much, Emmanuel, for that wonderful intervention and also for mentioning examples from across different countries from the region as well as efforts done by the ITU when to address the e-waste management as well as talking about the circular economy. I will now go ahead and give the floor to our last speaker and then we will go ahead to our Q&A or any comment from the audience online. So, Osam, given from your experience working in the private sector, how do you think data-driven technologies such as AI as well as IoT and digital products as well can support the monitoring, enforcement and innovation of e-waste policies across industries? Over to you.

Participant: Thank you, Sabah. So, when we are talking about e-waste policies, for example, the extended producer responsibility or the right to repair, we mainly focus on legislations, stakeholder engagement or sustainability goal. But we rarely ask a very important question, what systems do we actually have to make these policies work? And from my perspective as a data professional, I believe that data-driven technologies are the essential tool to translate these policies into measurable and scalable action. And let me give you a simple truth. We can’t manage what we can’t measure. And right now, the global e-waste system is mostly blind. When we are talking, for example, about the global e-waste monitor, the world generates over 62 million metric tons of e-waste. Less than 20% is formally collected and recycled. So, we have a huge amount of e-waste in our country. And we have also the global e-waste system, which means that we have millions of tons of devices, of batteries, of toxic components that are not accounted for. And here comes exactly the role of AI, IoT, and digital product passports. With detecting which materials we can, for example, recover. Also, it can help us forecast the product failure before it happens. Also, it can help us detect and analyze the patterns of the global waste or the waste management. So, this will give policymakers a real ability to act. Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos This tool, across all borders, across all technologies, otherwise we will be creating silos rather than data sharing solutions. And lastly, I would mention that we should not, we must not overlook data responsibility because with increasing accessibility, we need clear rules about data privacy, about ownership and accessibility, which are all under the umbrella of these governance practices. And I will go back to you, Sabah.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much, Ossam. You said one powerful word, which is we can’t manage what we can’t measure. And of course, thank you very much for also mentioning about the digital products passport, also not overlooking the responsibilities, focusing into data privacy and data governance as well. And thank you for your interventions again. Now, yes, since we have only a few minutes left, I will give the floor to Q&A or any comment from the floor. Of course, if you are joining us online, our online moderator, Atanas, will bring your questions to the floor. OK, I see one question from on site. Yes. Yes, that one. And please briefly introduce yourself and answer the question. Thank you.

Audience: Hi, do you hear me? Yeah. So Leandro Navarro, I’m coming from an NGO, but I’m also a member of ITU, the study group five, question seven, which is about circular economy, waste and supply chain. I was a reporter until the end of the year, but still I’m an expert. So just I wanted to comment that regarding ITU, there is also the ITU-R, sorry, ITU-T in which we develop standards. And there are several standards which are publicly available that talk about different aspects of not only e-waste, but also the circular economy. You will find, for instance, one recommendation that provides guidelines for national legislation regarding e-waste. We are in the publication process of an e-waste collection standard, which standards are important because when it comes to develop legislation, it’s important that is certain harmonization across across the different countries, especially because the electronics supply chain is global and then is a global problem. And we need a global, but also local, regional solutions to make sure that it doesn’t get worse. And I recommend you to look at the L series of recommendations in which you will find different aspects, including one recommendation about EPR. But the problem is so hard that I think it’s not enough to come up with legislation, regulation, but we need to act. And there is an encouragement to to to explore innovative ways to deal with a problem that is becoming bigger and bigger as we go. And in practical terms, for instance, a couple of examples. You were talking about the DPP in my activist side of it. Since I was working on standards on DPP in ITU, we are also working with civil society organizations to develop open source implementations of digital passports for electronics. So if you want to go to github.com slash reuse, you will find the code we are developing, because without open source implementations, we cannot really ensure that all this, well, the small, medium size and and tiny organizations are innovating. They would they need to code. They need data. They need tools to produce this information because, you know, digitalization is a form of formalization of the informal sector. And by lowering the entry barrier, we will enable to go from about 80 percent of products that disappear when they become waste to the opposite, because in the end, it’s an environmental problem. There is also encouragement to look at the opportunities to work on the right to repair in different regions. For instance, I’m part of the right to repair EU, but I encourage different communities to create these regional actors, because in the end, even though the problem is global, local solutions are different. And it’s important to create an environment where innovation can find a community, a multi-stakeholder community that can guide them to make sure that they are successful, because the problem deserves solutions. Thank you.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much for that for that comment. And do we have any questions online, Atanas?

Athanase Bahizire: Yes, Sabah, thank you. We have a question from Nicholas here. It says with the rapid progress in post-quantum cryptography and the reality that many existing IoT devices cannot be adapted due to firmware and hardware limitations. How should government and regulators prepare for the imminent wave for cryptographical obsolete devices, especially to ensure secure and off-life handling and enforcement on the EPR formats?

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much. Anyone would like to reflect?

Jasmine Ko: Can I just quickly reflect on the on-site response? I really appreciate you sharing the work standards that have been set by the ITU. I think they are good resources for national governments, regional alliance and even the grassroots community. They have been like who care about EU ways to actually look into it. And the thing is how how I think some of you also mentioned it’s about localizing the global problem. How do we make sure that we are able to adopt and really create, design something that fits into the community? Because people may have different user behavior. We have different density. We have different language. So it’s all about how how do the people bring bring the great global resources back to the local? So I think that these so so one, I think one, something that my community have been doing, trying to references to some global standards and and and try to implement. There are many challenges, I have to say, because it is about what we haven’t mentioned more about consumer behavior and mindset is how would people be incentivized to really add on with using their own ways? Why? You know, like but such as OK, choosing some part of that in the end of the life cycle, creating less waste or like they really do trade, trade in or like really to recycle their the devices they’ve been using. So in Hong Kong, we actually have we actually have recycling, recycling branches in our 18 districts. But we know that the problem is Hong Kong, like Hong Kong people are always, you know, over time working. And then the opening hour of this office are actually kind of crushed to business hours, so we cannot recycle in a weekday. So everyone have to rush to recycle in a weekend. And that creates some kind of logistic problem. So something that being smartly defunct, it’s we at the Hong Kong government trying to have some flexible hour on some mobile station. So not just in a physical store. So I actually have a truck to go around different district in B.C. office CBD area so that to cater people who really want to do recycling during the office hour or the lunch break. Thank you very much.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you. Thank you, Jasmine, for for your. Since we only have five minutes, I would like to maybe ask each panelist to share a final key takeaways or just share upon the comment that we made from our on-site participants. So yeah, something actionable in just 30 seconds or one minute maximum. And I will start with on-site, yeah.

Hossam El Gamal: So once again, Hosam El Gamal, Private Sector Africa. In brief, and especially if I’m talking to developing countries, e-waste is a challenge, a risk, but is really an opportunity. E-waste management is a real opportunity. Why? Because first of all, it can be bankable. E-waste can be considered as bankable projects. And thus, what is required for countries is to search for existing success stories of bankable projects managing e-waste and build on that to replicate in their own countries. One thing very important for all countries to work on e-waste is the fact that e-waste reply to many of the SDGs. I’ll just name, I will number the SDGs, and then you can name it because there are too many. SDG 12, target 12.4, 12.5, SDG 3, target 3.9, SDG 6, target 6.3, SDG 8, target 8.8, SDG 11, target 11.6, SDG 14, 15, and 13. And indirectly, SDG 4, 9, and 17. So for any country working on the SDGs and having a plan to achieve, this is quite important to take into consideration and to encourage having bankable projects in this area and to create the proper awareness for the different stakeholders with that regard. Thank you very much.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much. Jasmine? Okay, sorry.

Jasmine Ko: So I think one takeaway for each of you is considering, be aware of how many devices you have, and also considering what kind of more eco-friendly design product that you could have. Think about how you could do more and waste less in your own personal capacity. I think that’s my call to action.

Participant: Okay. So from my side, three fast takeaways. First of all, government industry should invest in digital infrastructure, not just in policies because this is where we can make the e-waste traceable. Second, we need, like we said, to make these global standards, international standards for the products, passports, to make the compliance and innovation in a global scale. And lastly, I believe that we should stop treating data as an afterthought. In fact, data is not for just transparency, but it’s the foundation of accountability as well for a true, for a key circular economy. Thank you. Thank you.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much, Osama. Manuel and Thelma.

Thelma Quaye: Okay. Should I go?

Saba Tiku Beyene: Yeah, sure.

Thelma Quaye: So, thank you very much for the opportunity, and I think that we, the first three panelists, and allow me to summarize what they have said to say, if we want a truly global, you know, digital future, we need to build one where sustainability is not an afterthought. It has to be sustainability by design. We need to be our own architects. And when it comes to e-waste, it’s an opportunity, it’s a great opportunity to create value, to drive innovation, and show what inclusive and circular digital economies can look like. Thank you very much.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you. Thank you very much, Thelma and Manuel.

Emmanuel Niyikora: Thank you so much. So, I think my previous speakers have already said, for me, I would say, yes, design, sustainability by design, and then it has to be a consultative approach, private and public consultations. So, in terms of when we are building the extended producer responsibility policies, so we need to involve everyone, including the youth, then to bring in innovation. That is important. Look at the youth that are very active in this space, because there’s no solution now to e-waste. Thank you. So, we need to bring in innovation, and when we talk innovation, we need to support the youth innovations in this space. So, that’s my contribution. And then come out to the public and private in building the policies, but also in applying the policies, making sure that, especially in the case for Africa, making sure that we know what comes in, in terms of…

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much, Emmanuel. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. We’re a bit over time. So, I’d like to say, yes, thank you so, so much to all of our speakers, both on-site and online, also to our reporters, online moderators for joining us and staying with us. As a requirement, we’ll be posting the key summaries as well as takeaways on the IGF website. So, please feel free to go ahead and read or refer it. So, yeah, that’s all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think let’s take a photo together.

Agreement points

E-waste management requires comprehensive multi-stakeholder collaboration

Speakers

– Saba Tiku Beyene
– Jasmine Ko
– Emmanuel Niyikora
– Thelma Quaye

Arguments

Multiple actors including policy makers, ICT device producers, civil society and individual users all have roles in fostering sustainability

Multi-stakeholder initiatives involving industry, government and civil society are crucial for effective e-waste management

EPR policies require consultative approaches involving both public and private sectors, including youth for innovation

Cross-regional collaboration and knowledge sharing between countries like Nigeria, South Africa, Colombia and India strengthens regulatory frameworks

Summary

All speakers agree that effective e-waste management cannot be achieved by any single actor alone and requires coordinated efforts across government, industry, civil society, and individual users through inclusive consultation processes

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is fundamental to effective e-waste management

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Emmanuel Niyikora

Arguments

Comprehensive regulations are needed focusing on strengthening Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) with clear mandates for manufacturers, importers and retailers

ITU works with countries like Rwanda and Zambia to develop EPR frameworks and promotes international knowledge exchange between countries

Summary

Both speakers emphasize EPR as a critical policy framework that places responsibility on producers throughout the product lifecycle, with ITU actively supporting countries in developing these frameworks

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

E-waste represents significant economic opportunities beyond environmental challenges

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Thelma Quaye

Arguments

E-waste represents both a clear challenge and opportunity, especially in developing countries, with proper actions turning challenges into profitable opportunities

E-waste management can be bankable projects that countries should replicate based on existing success stories

E-waste represents an opportunity to create value, drive innovation and demonstrate inclusive circular digital economies

Summary

Both speakers view e-waste not just as an environmental problem but as a significant economic opportunity that can drive innovation, create value, and support sustainable development when properly managed

Topics

Economic | Development

Technology and data-driven solutions are essential for effective e-waste management

Speakers

– Saba Tiku Beyene
– Participant
– Audience

Arguments

Digital innovations can support e-waste reduction and circular economy principles with real world impacts

Data-driven technologies like AI, IoT and digital product passports are essential tools to translate policies into measurable and scalable action

Open source implementations of digital passports for electronics are being developed to lower entry barriers for organizations

Summary

Speakers agree that technological solutions, particularly AI, IoT, and digital passports, are crucial for making e-waste management measurable, traceable, and scalable

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Awareness and capacity building are foundational to successful e-waste management

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Jasmine Ko

Arguments

E-waste management requires starting with awareness, followed by capacity building for proper handling personnel

There is a huge awareness gap among consumers regarding proper e-waste disposal and recycling processes

Consumer behavior and mindset changes are essential, requiring incentives for people to participate in proper e-waste disposal

Summary

Both speakers identify public awareness and behavioral change as fundamental prerequisites for effective e-waste management, noting significant gaps in consumer knowledge about proper disposal methods

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the massive scale of the e-waste problem, with Hossam providing regional data from Egypt and Participant providing global statistics, both emphasizing the growing nature of the challenge and poor management rates

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Participant

Arguments

Egypt produces 370,000 tons of e-waste annually with projected increases due to rapid technological adoption and shorter product lifecycles

The global e-waste system is mostly blind with over 62 million metric tons generated globally but less than 20% formally collected and recycled

Topics

Development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of engaging younger generations and local communities in developing innovative solutions, recognizing that grassroots involvement is essential for effective implementation

Speakers

– Emmanuel Niyikora
– Jasmine Ko

Arguments

Youth innovation and involvement are critical for developing solutions to e-waste challenges

Local empowerment opportunities and community-based solutions are needed to address the global problem at local levels

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers advocate for proactive, systematic approaches to e-waste management that go beyond reactive policy measures to include fundamental infrastructure and design changes

Speakers

– Participant
– Thelma Quaye

Arguments

Digital infrastructure investment is needed beyond just policies to make e-waste traceable and accountable

Sustainability must be designed into products from the beginning rather than treated as an afterthought

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Unexpected consensus

E-waste as economic opportunity rather than just environmental burden

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Thelma Quaye

Arguments

E-waste represents both a clear challenge and opportunity, especially in developing countries, with proper actions turning challenges into profitable opportunities

E-waste management can be bankable projects that countries should replicate based on existing success stories

E-waste represents an opportunity to create value, drive innovation and demonstrate inclusive circular digital economies

Explanation

It’s unexpected that speakers from different sectors (private sector representative and international organization) would so strongly emphasize the economic opportunities of e-waste management rather than focusing primarily on environmental concerns, suggesting a mature understanding of circular economy principles

Topics

Economic | Development

Critical importance of data and measurement in e-waste management

Speakers

– Participant
– Hossam El Gamal

Arguments

We can’t manage what we can’t measure – the lack of visibility in e-waste tracking is a fundamental problem

E-waste management addresses multiple SDGs including targets related to sustainable consumption, health, water, decent work, sustainable cities, and climate action

Explanation

The strong consensus on data-driven approaches from both technical and policy perspectives is unexpected, showing alignment between data professionals and policy makers on the fundamental need for measurable, trackable systems

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus across key areas including the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, EPR frameworks, technology-driven solutions, and viewing e-waste as economic opportunity. There was strong agreement on the importance of awareness building, youth involvement, and data-driven approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with no significant disagreements identified. This strong alignment suggests the e-waste management field has matured to where stakeholders from different sectors (private, public, international organizations, civil society) share common understanding of challenges and solutions. The implications are positive for policy development and implementation, as this consensus provides a solid foundation for coordinated global action on e-waste management.

Different viewpoints

Primary focus for e-waste management solutions

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Participant

Arguments

Comprehensive regulations are needed focusing on strengthening Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) with clear mandates for manufacturers, importers and retailers

Digital infrastructure investment is needed beyond just policies to make e-waste traceable and accountable

Summary

Hossam emphasizes regulatory frameworks and EPR as the primary solution, while the Participant argues that technology infrastructure is more critical than policies alone for effective e-waste management

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

Approach to consumer engagement in e-waste management

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Jasmine Ko

Arguments

There is a huge awareness gap among consumers regarding proper e-waste disposal and recycling processes

Consumer behavior and mindset changes are essential, requiring incentives for people to participate in proper e-waste disposal

Summary

Hossam focuses on awareness gaps as the core consumer issue, while Jasmine emphasizes the need for behavioral incentives and systemic changes to accommodate consumer needs

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Role of technology versus policy in e-waste management

Speakers

– Participant
– Multiple other speakers

Arguments

We can’t manage what we can’t measure – the lack of visibility in e-waste tracking is a fundamental problem

Egypt has legislation from 2020 treating e-waste as hazardous waste with specific collection, recycling and disposal guidelines through authorized facilities

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was a fundamental disagreement about whether existing policies are sufficient or whether the core problem is lack of technological infrastructure for measurement and tracking. This disagreement was surprising given the technical nature of the forum

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts being about emphasis and approach rather than fundamental opposition. Main disagreements centered on whether to prioritize regulatory frameworks versus technological infrastructure, and whether to focus on awareness-building versus incentive-based behavioral change

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The disagreements were more about strategic priorities and implementation approaches rather than fundamental goals, which suggests good potential for finding common ground and integrated solutions that combine regulatory, technological, and behavioral approaches

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the massive scale of the e-waste problem, with Hossam providing regional data from Egypt and Participant providing global statistics, both emphasizing the growing nature of the challenge and poor management rates

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Participant

Arguments

Egypt produces 370,000 tons of e-waste annually with projected increases due to rapid technological adoption and shorter product lifecycles

The global e-waste system is mostly blind with over 62 million metric tons generated globally but less than 20% formally collected and recycled

Topics

Development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of engaging younger generations and local communities in developing innovative solutions, recognizing that grassroots involvement is essential for effective implementation

Speakers

– Emmanuel Niyikora
– Jasmine Ko

Arguments

Youth innovation and involvement are critical for developing solutions to e-waste challenges

Local empowerment opportunities and community-based solutions are needed to address the global problem at local levels

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers advocate for proactive, systematic approaches to e-waste management that go beyond reactive policy measures to include fundamental infrastructure and design changes

Speakers

– Participant
– Thelma Quaye

Arguments

Digital infrastructure investment is needed beyond just policies to make e-waste traceable and accountable

Sustainability must be designed into products from the beginning rather than treated as an afterthought

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Key takeaways

E-waste represents both a significant challenge and economic opportunity, particularly for developing countries, with potential for profitable and bankable projects

Current global e-waste management is inadequate – over 62 million tons generated annually but less than 20% formally collected and recycled

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks are essential, requiring manufacturers to take responsibility from design through disposal

Data-driven technologies (AI, IoT, digital product passports) are crucial for making e-waste traceable and manageable – ‘we can’t manage what we can’t measure’

Multi-stakeholder collaboration involving government, private sector, civil society, and youth is necessary for effective solutions

Sustainability must be ‘by design’ rather than an afterthought in product development

E-waste management addresses multiple UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and indirectly 4, 9, 17)

Local implementation of global standards is critical, requiring adaptation to community-specific behaviors, languages, and infrastructure

Consumer awareness and behavior change are fundamental to successful e-waste management

Youth innovation and involvement are essential for developing new solutions to e-waste challenges

Resolutions and action items

Countries should search for and replicate existing success stories of bankable e-waste management projects

Governments and industry should invest in digital infrastructure beyond just policies to make e-waste traceable

Global standards for digital product passports need to be established for compliance and innovation at scale

ITU will continue international knowledge exchange programs between countries like Nigeria, South Africa, Colombia, and India

Open source implementations of digital passports for electronics should be developed and made available

Individuals should assess their device usage and choose more eco-friendly designed products

Key summaries and takeaways will be posted on the IGF website for reference

Unresolved issues

How to effectively address the challenge of cryptographically obsolete IoT devices that cannot be updated due to firmware and hardware limitations

How to bridge the gap between global standards and local implementation challenges across different regions

How to effectively incentivize consumer participation in proper e-waste disposal and recycling programs

How to formalize the large informal e-waste sector that currently dominates in many developing countries

How to ensure data privacy and governance while implementing digital tracking solutions for e-waste

How to create flexible collection systems that accommodate different work schedules and lifestyles

How to ensure equitable access to e-waste management solutions across different economic levels

Suggested compromises

Balancing producer responsibility with consumer costs – acknowledging that EPR responsibilities may ultimately be passed to consumers through pricing

Combining formal and informal sector approaches – leveraging existing informal waste collectors while improving their methods and safety

Implementing flexible collection systems – using both fixed locations and mobile stations to accommodate different schedules and locations

Adopting phased implementation of global standards – allowing for local adaptation while maintaining overall consistency

Sharing responsibility across stakeholders – involving government, private sector, civil society, and individuals rather than placing burden on any single actor

We can’t manage what we can’t measure. And right now, the global e-waste system is mostly blind. When we are talking, for example, about the global e-waste monitor, the world generates over 62 million metric tons of e-waste. Less than 20% is formally collected and recycled.

Speaker

Participant (Ossam)

Reason

This comment crystallized a fundamental challenge in e-waste management by highlighting the paradox between the scale of the problem and our inability to track it effectively. It reframed the discussion from policy-focused solutions to data-driven accountability, introducing a systems thinking approach.

Impact

This observation shifted the conversation toward the critical role of technology and measurement systems in policy implementation. It provided a foundation for discussing AI, IoT, and digital product passports as essential tools rather than optional enhancements, elevating the technical discussion beyond traditional regulatory approaches.

E-waste is a challenge, a risk, but is really an opportunity. E-waste management is a real opportunity… it can be bankable. E-waste can be considered as bankable projects.

Speaker

Hossam El Gamal

Reason

This reframing challenged the typical deficit-focused narrative around e-waste by positioning it as an economic opportunity rather than just an environmental burden. The concept of ‘bankable projects’ introduced a business viability perspective that could attract private sector investment.

Impact

This comment established a more optimistic and solution-oriented tone for the discussion. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider economic incentives and business models, moving beyond regulatory compliance to entrepreneurial opportunities. This perspective helped bridge the gap between environmental concerns and economic development.

We are also working with civil society organizations to develop open source implementations of digital passports for electronics… because without open source implementations, we cannot really ensure that all this… the small, medium size and tiny organizations are innovating.

Speaker

Leandro Navarro (Audience)

Reason

This comment introduced the critical concept of democratizing access to e-waste management tools through open-source solutions. It highlighted how technical barriers could exclude smaller organizations from participating in circular economy initiatives, addressing equity in sustainability efforts.

Impact

This intervention deepened the technical discussion by connecting global standards to grassroots implementation. It prompted Jasmine to reflect on localization challenges and sparked consideration of how global solutions need to be adapted for different community contexts and capabilities.

The problem is Hong Kong people are always over time working. And then the opening hour of this office are actually kind of crushed to business hours, so we cannot recycle in a weekday… So something that being smartly defunct, it’s we at the Hong Kong government trying to have some flexible hour on some mobile station.

Speaker

Jasmine Ko

Reason

This comment provided a concrete example of how consumer behavior and lifestyle patterns can undermine well-intentioned e-waste policies. It demonstrated that effective policy implementation requires understanding and adapting to real-world user constraints.

Impact

This practical example grounded the theoretical discussion in real-world implementation challenges. It illustrated how policy design must consider human factors and led to recognition that successful e-waste management requires behavioral insights, not just regulatory frameworks.

We need to stop treating data as an afterthought. In fact, data is not for just transparency, but it’s the foundation of accountability as well for a true circular economy.

Speaker

Participant (Ossam)

Reason

This comment elevated data from a supporting role to a foundational element of circular economy systems. It challenged the traditional view of data as merely reporting tool and positioned it as essential infrastructure for accountability and system effectiveness.

Impact

This insight reinforced the earlier measurement theme and helped establish data governance as a core policy consideration rather than a technical detail. It influenced the final recommendations to emphasize digital infrastructure investment alongside traditional policy measures.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by transforming it from a traditional policy-focused conversation into a more nuanced, multi-dimensional analysis of e-waste management. The progression moved from identifying challenges to reframing them as opportunities, then to examining practical implementation barriers and technological solutions. The comments collectively established three critical themes: the necessity of measurement and data systems for effective governance, the importance of economic viability for sustainable solutions, and the need for inclusive, locally-adapted approaches. This evolution created a more comprehensive understanding that effective e-waste management requires integration of policy, technology, economics, and human behavior rather than relying on any single approach.

When we discard our phones and laptops, where do they go?

Speaker

Emmanuel Niyikora

Explanation

This highlights a critical knowledge gap about e-waste disposal pathways that most consumers are unaware of, which is fundamental to understanding the scope of the e-waste problem

What systems do we actually have to make these policies work?

Speaker

Participant (Hossam El Muraie)

Explanation

This addresses the implementation gap between policy creation and practical enforcement mechanisms for e-waste management

How should government and regulators prepare for the imminent wave for cryptographical obsolete devices, especially to ensure secure and off-life handling and enforcement on the EPR formats?

Speaker

Nicholas (online participant)

Explanation

This addresses the emerging challenge of post-quantum cryptography making existing IoT devices obsolete and the resulting e-waste management implications

How do we make sure that we are able to adopt and really create, design something that fits into the community with different user behavior, density, and language?

Speaker

Jasmine Ko

Explanation

This focuses on the localization challenge of adapting global e-waste standards and solutions to specific community contexts and cultural differences

How would people be incentivized to really participate in proper e-waste disposal and create less waste in their device lifecycle?

Speaker

Jasmine Ko

Explanation

This addresses the behavioral economics aspect of e-waste management and the need to understand consumer motivation for sustainable practices

Need for research on bankable e-waste projects and replication of success stories in developing countries

Speaker

Hossam El Gamal

Explanation

This identifies the need to study and document financially viable e-waste management models that can be scaled across developing nations

Need for global standards for digital product passports to enable compliance and innovation at global scale

Speaker

Participant (Hossam El Muraie)

Explanation

This highlights the need for standardized digital documentation systems to track electronic products throughout their lifecycle globally

Research needed on youth innovations in e-waste management space

Speaker

Emmanuel Niyikora

Explanation

This emphasizes the need to identify, study, and support innovative solutions being developed by young entrepreneurs and innovators in the e-waste sector

Summary

This panel discussion, moderated by Sabhanaz Rashid Diya from the Tech Global Institute, focused on Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and its implementation across different countries, particularly in the Global South. The conversation brought together government officials, academics, and researchers from India, Brazil, Estonia, Dominican Republic, and South Africa to examine both the promises and challenges of DPI systems.

The panelists presented varied experiences with DPI implementation. Luca Belli from Brazil highlighted the success of PIX, Brazil’s digital payment system, which broke the Visa-MasterCard duopoly and demonstrated how DPI can enhance competition while keeping data governance local. In contrast, Keith Breckenridge from South Africa offered a more cautionary perspective, noting that while DPI represents an improvement over previous systems, financial inclusion hasn’t delivered promised benefits and has created new vulnerabilities, particularly for elderly populations susceptible to online fraud and gambling.

Sheo Bhadra Singh from India’s Telecom Regulatory Authority emphasized how India’s DPI journey began with addressing basic service delivery problems, leading to the creation of Aadhaar digital identity system that now serves 1.33 billion Indians. He stressed that DPI enabled massive financial inclusion through Jan Dhan accounts and UPI payments, processing billions of transactions monthly. However, Smriti Parsheera and Bidisha Chaudhury raised concerns about the strong state-market alliance in DPI development, questioning whether digitalization truly equals inclusion and highlighting the risk of creating “alt big tech” monopolies.

Armando Manzueta from Dominican Republic shared his country’s approach to building DPI as a “nation-building tool” grounded in rights and trust, emphasizing the importance of legal frameworks and civil society oversight. Rasmus Lumi from Estonia outlined the Freedom Online Coalition’s rights-respecting DPI principles, including human-centered design, inclusivity, transparency, and interoperability. The discussion concluded with agreement that successful DPI must be citizen-centric, ethical, and accountable, with proper safeguards embedded in law and meaningful participation from civil society to ensure these systems truly serve the public interest.

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

This panel discussion aimed to examine Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) from multiple perspectives, focusing on governance models, implementation experiences across different countries, and the balance between technological innovation and human rights protection. The conversation sought to identify universal principles for DPI while acknowledging that national contexts require different approaches.

## Major Discussion Points

– **Defining DPI and National Implementation Models**: Panelists explored various definitions and approaches to DPI, with examples from India (Aadhaar, UPI), Brazil (PIX payment system), South Africa, Estonia (X-Road), and Dominican Republic. The discussion highlighted how different countries have developed DPI solutions based on their specific problem statements – from financial inclusion to government service delivery.

– **Ownership, Governance, and Public vs. Private Control**: A central debate emerged around who should own and control DPI systems. The conversation contrasted Brazil’s fully public approach (enabling Freedom of Information requests) with India’s foundation-based model, and examined concerns about creating new monopolies while trying to break existing ones, particularly regarding big tech influence.

– **Rights, Privacy, and Accountability in DPI Systems**: Panelists discussed the importance of embedding human rights principles into DPI architecture, including data protection, transparency, and citizen control over personal data. Estonia’s approach of allowing citizens to track who accesses their data was highlighted as a best practice, while concerns were raised about exclusion and the risks of digital systems.

– **Financial Inclusion Benefits and Risks**: The discussion examined both the promise and perils of DPI-enabled financial inclusion. While acknowledging successes in expanding access to banking and payments, panelists raised concerns about predatory lending, online gambling, fraud vulnerability (especially for elderly users), and whether digital access truly equals meaningful inclusion.

– **Stakeholder Collaboration and Civil Society Role**: The conversation addressed the need for multi-stakeholder approaches to DPI development, questioning whether civil society has adequate voice in predominantly state-market partnerships. Panelists emphasized the importance of public participation, regulatory oversight, and the need for trusted intermediaries to help citizens navigate complex digital systems.

## Overall Tone

The discussion maintained a balanced, analytical tone throughout, combining optimism about DPI’s potential with realistic assessments of its challenges. Panelists were respectful but candid about both successes and failures in their respective contexts. The tone was collaborative rather than confrontational, with speakers building on each other’s points and acknowledging the complexity of implementing people-centered DPI. The conversation remained academically rigorous while staying grounded in practical implementation experiences.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Sabhanaz Rashid Diya** – Moderator, Tech Global Institute (not-for-profit focusing on global south digital rights and policy issues), Advisory network member of Freedom Online Coalition

– **Rasmus Lumi** – Director General of the Department of International Organizations and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia

– **Luca Belli** – Professor at FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro, and Director of the Center for Technology and Society

– **Smriti Parsheera** – Research Fellow at the Interledger Foundation, co-convening the panel with the Freedom Online Coalition

– **Sheo Bhadra Singh** – Principal Advisor for the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

– **Armando Manzueta** – Vice Minister for Public Innovation and Technology at the Ministry of Public Administration of the Dominican Republic (online participant)

– **Keith Breckenridge** – Standard Bank Chair in African Trust Infrastructures at the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa (online participant)

– **Bidisha Chaudhury** – Assistant Professor of Government, Information, Cultures, and Digital Citizenship at the University of Amsterdam (online participant)

– **Audience** – Audience member asking questions (identified as Elizabeth, working with mobile industry association, previously worked with government of Nigeria on digital policy reforms)

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond those in the speakers names list.

# Digital Public Infrastructure: Governance, Implementation, and Human Rights – Panel Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion, moderated by Sabhanaz Rashid Diya from the Tech Global Institute, examined Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) from multiple perspectives, bringing together government officials, academics, and researchers from India, Brazil, Estonia, Dominican Republic, and South Africa. The conversation emerged from India’s G20 presidency promotion of DPI and has become a significant topic across global processes including Brazil, South Africa, the Freedom Online Coalition, the Global Digital Compact, and various UN bodies.

The discussion addressed a fundamental tension: whilst DPI represents deeply national technology for citizen databases and processes, it requires global dialogue and common language for interoperability. As Diya noted, this creates both opportunities and challenges for developing universal principles whilst respecting national contexts and sovereignty.

## Defining Digital Public Infrastructure

The panellists offered varied perspectives on what constitutes DPI. Armando Manzueta from the Dominican Republic provided a holistic definition, describing DPI as “not just a set of technologies but a nation-building tool that must be grounded in rights, resilience, and trust.” This framing moved beyond technical specifications to encompass broader governance and social objectives.

The discussion revealed that DPI implementations vary significantly across countries based on their specific problem statements. India’s journey began with addressing service delivery challenges for excluded populations. Brazil focused on breaking payment monopolies. Estonia built comprehensive digital government services over 25 years. Each approach reflected national priorities and contexts whilst contributing to a broader understanding of DPI possibilities.

## National Implementation Models and Experiences

### India’s Comprehensive Ecosystem

Sheo Bhadra Singh from India’s Telecom Regulatory Authority presented the most comprehensive DPI implementation, beginning with Aadhaar in 2009-2010 to provide public services access to large excluded populations. The system now serves 1.33 billion Indians with digital identities, enabling 550 million zero-balance bank accounts and processing 18.77 billion UPI transactions worth $290 billion in a single month of 2025.

Singh highlighted several major platforms beyond identity and payments: GEM (Government E-Market Place) with 11,000 products, 336 services, 164,000 buyers, and $625 billion in procurement; ONDC (Open Network of Digital Commerce) for democratizing e-commerce; and a health platform with 787 million registrations. He emphasised that India’s success required the state to play three key roles: creating institutional space through the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), scaling through policy mandates, and providing regulatory oversight of the multi-stakeholder ecosystem.

Singh stressed that DPI must be “user-centric and citizen-centric with the goal of serving society as the basic principle from which everything else can be built.”

### Brazil’s Competition-Focused Approach

Luca Belli from FGV Law School highlighted Brazil’s PIX payment system as exemplifying “good digital sovereignty” that fosters competition, domestic innovation, and people empowerment. PIX broke the Visa-MasterCard duopoly, reducing transaction costs from 3-5% to zero whilst distributing data collection and maintaining public accountability through freedom of information laws.

Belli provided important context about international payment system development, explaining how Russia developed the MIR system after 2014 sanctions, India innovated with UPI, and Brazil enhanced the model with PIX. He argued that PIX demonstrates how DPI can simultaneously increase customer welfare, enhance competition, produce innovation, and distribute data governance. Crucially, local entrepreneurs who innovate using this infrastructure pay taxes in Brazil, creating “a very different dynamic of empowerment through DPIs” compared to foreign-controlled systems.

Belli also emphasised the crucial role of India’s 2016 net neutrality regulations, which prohibited zero rating and dropped connectivity prices by 90%, enabling an innovation boom by making all services equally accessible.

### Estonia’s Long-term Digital Governance

Rasmus Lumi from Estonia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs outlined a 25-year journey of building digital public infrastructure starting around 2000, achieving nearly 100% online public services access. Estonia’s model ensures every citizen owns and controls their data, with the ability to verify which officials accessed their information, providing what Lumi termed “preventive accountability.”

Lumi noted that “I think divorce is now, I think, the only thing that we cannot do online yet” in Estonia. He stressed that “trust is the most important but uncodifiable element for DPI success – people can be forced to use systems but won’t maximise benefits without trust.”

Under Estonia’s chairship, the Freedom Online Coalition is developing rights-respecting DPI principles including human-centred solutions, inclusivity, transparency, privacy, security, sustainability, data-driven approaches, and technology neutrality.

### Dominican Republic’s Rights-Based Framework

Manzueta shared the Dominican Republic’s approach to DPI adoption beginning in 2020, focusing on data interoperability using Estonia’s X-Road platform. With 71-72 institutions currently using the ecosystem for data exchange, the country emphasises shared responsibility and oversight from civil society and private sector in DPI governance and implementation.

The Dominican Republic faces significant financial inclusion challenges, with roughly half the population financially excluded and only 30% of the included receiving broader financial services. This context shapes their approach to building DPI as a foundation for broader development goals.

### South Africa’s Cautionary Experience

Keith Breckenridge from the University of Witwatersrand provided the most critical perspective, noting that whilst South Africa has had digital welfare distribution since the early 1990s and biometric population registers for 20 years, financial inclusion hasn’t delivered promised benefits and has created new vulnerabilities.

Breckenridge highlighted alarming statistics: one trillion Rand was spent on online gambling in 2023 – equivalent to one-third of South Africa’s GDP. He warned that “we’re building an infrastructure that’s going to make a huge population newly vulnerable to really serious crimes, and there’s no discussion of what we should be doing about that.”

He also raised concerns about the Trump administration’s withdrawal from regulatory frameworks that could affect DPI oversight and accountability mechanisms.

## Key Debates and Disagreements

### Public versus Quasi-Public Ownership

A significant disagreement emerged between Belli and Smriti Parsheera regarding ownership models. Belli argued that Brazil’s PIX is “truly public because it’s delivered by government (Central Bank), ensuring freedom of information access, unlike India’s foundation-based model that can avoid transparency requirements.”

Parsheera countered with concerns about the “strong state-market alliance” in DPI implementation, warning of risks of creating “alt big tech that pursues scale recklessly while being blind to due process.” She questioned whether DPI initiatives were truly different from private tech monopolies in their approach to scaling without adequate safeguards.

### Persistent Big Tech Influence

Bidisha Chaudhury from the University of Amsterdam raised a crucial point about the persistence of big tech influence even in state-owned DPI systems. She noted that despite UPI being state-owned infrastructure, users primarily identify it with Google Pay rather than recognising it as public infrastructure.

Chaudhury posed a fundamental challenge: “How do we actually circumvent the influence of big tech when we rely on an infrastructure where big tech interests are so much more embedded already?” This question highlighted the gap between policy intentions and ground reality in DPI implementation.

### Financial Inclusion: Benefits versus Risks

Singh celebrated massive scale achievements in financial inclusion, whilst Breckenridge provided a stark counternarrative about how financial inclusion through DPI can enable harmful behaviours. Beyond gambling statistics, he highlighted risks of usurious lending at 1% daily interest and vulnerability to fraud, particularly affecting elderly populations who lack digital skills.

Parsheera raised important questions about how financial inclusion is defined, asking whether it should encompass only payments and remittances or include broader financial services like insurance. She also questioned whether biometric-based ID systems are necessary for achieving financial inclusion goals.

## Governance Challenges and Civil Society Participation

Parsheera highlighted that “civil society participation is limited in DPI deployment, which follows top-down approaches without robust transparency and accountability culture like regulatory impact assessments.” This observation revealed a significant gap between DPI rhetoric about multi-stakeholder governance and implementation reality.

Belli emphasised that successful DPI implementation requires “independent, well-resourced institutions that understand the technology and can work with stakeholders, plus systemic vision considering connectivity and affordability.” This institutional capacity extends beyond technical expertise to include governance capabilities and stakeholder coordination skills.

## Accountability and Protection Mechanisms

### Metrics of Exclusion

Breckenridge introduced the crucial concept of “metrics of exclusion,” arguing that DPI systems should make visible “the number of people whose identity numbers are at the moment disabled and how long it’s taken to answer queries around those numbers.” He cited South Africa’s example where two million identity numbers were disabled by simply editing a comment field, preventing access to all digital services.

### Liability Frameworks

Breckenridge called for liability frameworks where financial institutions bear responsibility for fraud losses, referencing Britain’s model of bank liability. This approach would shift responsibility from individual citizens to institutions better equipped to prevent and address fraud.

### Privacy and Data Control

Lumi outlined the complexity of privacy in DPI systems, identifying two dimensions: external privacy from outside users and internal privacy with checks on government access to citizen data. Estonia’s approach allows citizens to track who accesses their data, providing transparency and control over personal information.

## Technical Vulnerabilities and Risks

The discussion revealed multiple layers of risk in DPI systems. Breckenridge highlighted technical vulnerabilities including backend hacking where criminals steal encryption codes, plus social engineering attacks targeting vulnerable populations. The fragility of systems was demonstrated by South Africa’s experience where editing a comment field disabled two million identity numbers.

A recurring theme was the particular vulnerability of elderly and digitally unskilled populations to fraud and exploitation through DPI systems. The discussion revealed that whilst DPI can expand access, it can also create new forms of exclusion and harm for those unable to navigate digital complexity.

## Future Directions and Unresolved Questions

Several fundamental questions remained unresolved throughout the discussion:

1. **Digital Access versus Meaningful Inclusion**: Whether digital access automatically translates to meaningful social and economic inclusion remains contested.

2. **Governance Models**: How to balance state-market alliances without creating new monopolies whilst ensuring public accountability.

3. **Big Tech Influence**: How to achieve true digital sovereignty when private platforms control user interfaces and experiences.

4. **Vulnerability Protection**: How to protect elderly and digitally unskilled populations from exploitation whilst expanding digital access.

5. **Civil Society Participation**: How to move beyond token consultation to meaningful participation in DPI governance.

## Conclusion

This discussion revealed DPI as a complex phenomenon that defies simple categorisation as either beneficial or harmful. The panellists demonstrated that whilst DPI can deliver significant benefits in terms of financial inclusion, service delivery, and breaking monopolies, it also creates new risks and vulnerabilities that require careful attention.

The conversation highlighted the importance of context-specific approaches whilst identifying universal principles around transparency, accountability, and human-centred design. The tension between celebrating technical achievements and addressing unintended consequences suggests that DPI development requires more sophisticated evaluation frameworks and stronger governance mechanisms.

The diversity of perspectives represented in this panel – from government officials celebrating scale achievements to academics warning about systemic risks – reflects the broader global debate about digital governance and the role of technology in development. Key areas requiring continued attention include developing meaningful civil society participation mechanisms, creating robust accountability frameworks that make exclusion visible, and addressing the persistent influence of big tech platforms even within state-owned infrastructure.

Ultimately, the discussion reinforced that successful DPI implementation requires not just technical expertise but also institutional capacity, stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to protecting vulnerable populations whilst ensuring these systems truly serve the public interest.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Okay. Let’s get started. Hello and good morning. I am very happy to see that there are still here people on Friday. So fantastic. And I’m very excited about our panel today. For those of you who don’t know me yet, I think I’ve met many of the people here already, but I am with the tech global institute. We are a not for profit that focuses on global south digital rights and policy issues and I’m very excited to be moderating this panel and being joined by a fantastic set of panelists both in person and online. We have about 90 minutes together and we’re going to divide this time up with some conversations with the panelists as well as an opportunity for the audience here as well as online to ask us some questions. So on that note, maybe I can start by introducing our panelists and then moving on to kind of talking a bit more about the discussion topic today, which is something that’s top of mind for all of us, which is digital public infrastructure. A topic that has been actually started by the Indian presidency of the G20 and has really moved on from there to Brazil and now South Africa is now also a major topic of the Freedom Online Coalition, which is where we are. I’m an advisory network member. A number of other global processes where DPI is increasingly coming up, whether that’s the GDC, whether that is some of the work from UNDP and a number of other UN bodies and UN processes. So this is an important topic, especially for those of us who are in the global majority. And I’m sure many of our panelists will have lots to say about that as well. So on that note, I am going to start with my panelists here. From the extreme left of me is Rasmus Lumi, who is the Director General of the Department of International Organizations and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia. Then we have Luca Belli, who is a professor at FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro, and Director of the Center for Technology and Society. We then have Smriti Parsheera, Research Fellow at the Interledger Foundation, who is also co-convening this panel with the Freedom Online Coalition. We then have Sheo Bhadra Singh, who is the Principal Advisor for the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. That’s our in-person panelists. And online, we are being joined by Mr. Armando Manzueta, who is the Vice Minister for Public Innovation and Technology at the Ministry of Public Administration of the Dominican Republic. Keith Breckenridge, who is the Standard Bank Chair in African Trust Infrastructures at the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa. I feel like I butchered that name, but hopefully Keith will correct me. As well as Bidisha Chaudhury, who is the Assistant Professor of Government, Information, Cultures, and Digital Citizenship at the University of Amsterdam. So a star-studded panel, as we say, but I’ll probably get started on that. So as I was saying, digital public infrastructure, and I was actually just in a panel right before, where we also quite talked about how do we think about DPI, not just within the context of specific processes, but perhaps all processes. And we were discussing that in the context of the G7 presidency as well, where it hasn’t really come up as much as a priority. But there is real opportunity for that, particularly because this is such an important issue for the global majority. But often as we think about. regional public infrastructure, there’s a bit of a tension, because in many ways, this is a technology that’s deeply national in many ways, right? Because it is about building for your national citizen databases, looking into various national processes, and really strengthening the role of the public sector in delivering services and opportunities for its citizens. But increasingly, these national processes are also becoming, because they’re part of these global dialogues and global conversations right now, there is an increasing need to find a common language around DPI. DPIs can be of many shapes, forms, we still are lacking a very universal definition of DPI. I think we are maybe at the tail end of that debate now, which is great, but that was a major issue of discussion for several years. But because so many countries are finding their own adoption models, thinking through their own public infrastructures, there is increasingly a need for thinking, what is the universal element of it? Are there certain principles that ties DPIs across different kinds of countries? How do we think about governance in this space? And are these governance approaches cross-border? Should they be cross-border? Can they be cross-border? And what are some of the political contexts, the social contexts driving DPI? Because while we want DPIs to be interoperable within national boundaries, we also want them to have some level of interoperability within international borders as well, because the whole point is to really tackle the data fragmentation problem, tackle some of the EGOF fragmentation problems. So there is a lot of promise there. So those are some of the, I guess, topics that I hope we will be discussing today. But that is sort of the context and backdrop within which I am having this conversation. I would also like to flag that as part of the Freedom Online Coalition, Estonia has been, during their chairship, leading on the rights-respecting DPI principles effort as well that Rasmus will speak about, which is also one way of really helping us think through those universal principles. So on that note, maybe I will start with Arma. with Luca, actually, who’s here with us today, maybe share a little bit more about, you know, what are, what do you think are some of the social, political, economic incentives driving DPI adoption in countries? And perhaps, you know, what, what’s, what’s some of the consideration that governments and other stakeholders should be having when they’re thinking about implementing DPI?

Luca Belli: Thank you very much for inviting me here and for organizing this very timely discussion. And let me also clarify that most of the thoughts I’m going to share are the result of our empirical research in one of our flagship projects at the center, which is called CyberBRICS, that analyzes the digital policies of the BRICS grouping. And so we have been analyzing data governance, cybersecurity, digital transformation, AI governance over the past seven years in the various phases. And a parallel theme that has emerged is the theme of digital sovereignty, which is what has led us to analyze even more in-depth DPIs. And let me tell you why. So we have recently published a book, which is online in open access on the site of the editor of Cambridge University Press on digital sovereignty in the BRICS. And by analyzing how the BRICS grouping has shaped the narrative, the initiative on digital sovereignty, you immediately understand that there is an ample spectrum of initiatives. Some of them are those initiatives that we analyze, but we do not recommend to reproduce, that flirt with authoritarianism or protectionism. Some others are some very interesting initiatives that I define as good digital sovereignty, that basically utilize the construction of technology to foster competition, to foster domestic innovation, and to empower people. And one of the very good examples of this is a digital public infrastructure we use in Brazil for online payments, PIX. I’m not sure if everyone knows it, but the So, I’m going to talk a little bit about the digital public infrastructure, and why this is a very good example of digital public infrastructure, and why this is a very good example of good digital sovereignty, and why this is something that automatically triggers from our experience user empowerment, innovation, and competition, and also taxation of the innovation that is happening in the world. So, the first way we have in Brazil, we had in Brazil to perform electronic payments was through Visa and MasterCard. So, we were totally dependent on a duopoly, two companies that are foreign companies, nothing against, I have literally zero against them, but they charge between 3% and 5% for every transaction. So, in every country, the consumers pay 3% for every transaction, and the consumers pay 5% for every transaction to Visa and MasterCard if you are dependent on them. So, since the Brazilian central bank that has developed the PIX with a multi-stakeholder effort with specialists and also with banks and financial intermediaries, and also implements it through a multi-stakeholder process, because there is something called the PIX forum, where all the implementers, the financial sector representatives can participate in the process, and the investors can also participate in the process. So, since this has been implemented, not only the duopoly has been broken, which is something that we should really celebrate, and our antitrust authority, through conventional means, would have never been able to do this, the duopoly has been broken by creating an alternative. And that is extremely powerful. So, the duopoly has been created, and it has dramatically reverted in the pockets of cost of customers, 3% to 5%, which is already something stellar. but also that this has distributed data collection. So people do not realize that over the past 10 years, Visa and MasterCard have become big data companies. So the main part of their revenue is not the three to 5% they collect per transaction, is the data they collect and they process, and thanks to which they generate AI and new services that usually also is the intellectual property of which is usually then delocalized to fiscal havens like the Cayman Islands and the Virgin Islands. So what is interesting here is not only that the customer welfare is increased, but also that competition is automatically enhanced, innovation is produced, and data governance is distributed. And the local entrepreneurs that innovate thanks to this, then they have to pay taxes in Brazil. So we have a very different dynamic here of empowerment through DPIs. So that is why we really see this as an incredible example of good digital sovereignty that actually Brazil has to some extent copied from India. India has UPI, and actually it’s an untold story that we recount in our book that India to some extent took inspiration from Russia, another BRICS country that in 2014, after he invaded for the first time Ukraine and next in Crimea, was blocked from the first sanction was the blockage of Visa and MasterCard. From overnight, they had to create a new system, it’s called MIR, like the space station, but it is based on a card. So it’s a very 20th century conception of it. The great innovation of the Indians has been leveraging their skills and do it a software-based digital public infrastructure. And I think to some extent, Brazil has enhanced it because if you look at the Indian example, that is something that in our observation makes it much easier to implement DPIs to delegate them. to the implementation, at least, to a non-public stakeholder. In India is the National Payment Corporation of India, which is a foundation, which is much more agile in implementing things than bureaucracies, and everyone knows the limits of government and bureaucracy in this sense. But I think that what is the problem here is that if you want to file a freedom of access to information in India, so let’s say that you are a user and you want to know which data it’s collected about you and which are the data security measures implemented, they can reply to you, we are sorry, this is not a public organ, this is a foundation, so we are not bound by freedom of access to information. And I think that this could be easily improved in India, but so far, I see, I have this criticism, the only criticism I actually have on the UPI in India. In Brazil, this has been improved, because it is a public, it’s a truly public service, it’s not something public only because it is publicly accessible, it’s public because it’s the government that delivers it. And so if I file a freedom of access to information request to the Brazilian Central Bank, they have to reply me, otherwise I sue them. And they have to, at that point, they will have to reply me. So if I, as a Brazilian citizen, I want to know which kind of data are collected and what are the measures, they need to tell me. So it’s much more performing in terms of accountability. So I think that for all these reasons, I think that there is a lot of room for considering DPR something very good for digital sovereignty, for good digital sovereignty, but also there are some limits, and so we should not praise them as if it was a religion, but be very pragmatic and analyze the fact. Thank you.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Luca, that was very helpful. And I think perhaps that’s where I would love to kind of bring in Keith from online. In terms of, you know, Luca talked a little bit about, sort of, you know, both the promise of DPR, but also the pragmatism associated with it, and the fact that. you know, there’s a very positive example for Brazil, but I know from your research in South Africa, you know, there has also been a different set of results. So, I’m curious, Keith, if you could share a little bit more about what your experience has been, you know, from the old age of IDs, digital IDs, and now, you know, the new shiny DPI, what some of those learnings and experiences has been from South Africa, and perhaps what are some of the political and socioeconomic contexts within which DPIs are existing in the global majority?

Keith Breckenridge: Thank you. Yeah, it is very interesting. Thanks very much for the invitation. Yeah, so DPI has come to South Africa through the G20 and the Gates Foundation and Operation Bulentlela. It’s coming in from the top of the bureaucracy, but many of the things that people think about as being kind of benefits of DPI have existed in South Africa for a long time, as they have in other places. I’m not suggesting we’re the only ones who’ve had that. So, we’ve had a digital system for welfare distribution since the early 1990s, in fact, a little bit older than that, and a biometric population register that covers everybody, at least, I can say it’s been in place for about 20 years, and both of these things interact with the payment system. They do not work in real time. There are all sorts of kind of clunky bits and pieces of it that don’t work well. I will say DPI is a big improvement on the plan that was in place in South Africa three or four years ago, which was one aimed at moving the population register into the security cluster. So, it was all about basically targeting people who were, in the officials’ minds, were illegally in South Africa. So, migrants, in particular, were going to be hunted down using high-resolution ID photographs and a CCTV network, all of this done with the support of the contracting companies. I won’t name them here, but they were selling that as a kind of resource to the bureaucracy. So, DPI, comparatively, wonderful. I mean, it’s a much… better system, a much better plan. And I think there are lots of things that DPI can do that would be excellent in the plans at least especially the UPI plans. We see space for enabling intermediaries for example letting people act as what we would call fiduciaries. And there’s possibility to build that out so that in fact you can. It’s not a question of very under equipped poor people confronting a powerful state and not being able to get any answers or remedies at the moment. But but the big kind of takeaway benefit that people keep pushing for DPI which is really about access and financial inclusion. I mean those things have been in place in South Africa for a long time for generations. There’s no big payoff from that area. I’m really skeptical that there are benefits for poor people a real time settlement. I think there’s actually this risk there. I don’t think it’s a benefit. And then so. And I think we really have to ask some hard questions about financial inclusion. I’m sorry. I can see. I mean I do understand. If you look at my work you’ll see a lot of benefits to this. But we have to ask what’s happening now. And financial inclusion is not doing what people promise for it. It is again something that we’ve seen for a while. We’re at least a decade into mass financial inclusion. It’s encouraging usurious lending. There’s no asset creation. People are borrowing at 1 percent a day and they’re being kind of pushed into a blacklisting engine that says if you don’t pay we’re going to block you out of ever accessing the formal credit system. The biggest problem in South Africa people don’t want to talk about is online gambling. So now people accessing the payment system using the gambling apps. It’s truly astonishing. One trillion Rand was spent on online gambling systems in 2023. That’s a third of GDP one third of GDP spent on gambling. And the tax collector is kind of complicit in this process because it’s like a big chunk of that and put it into. So it’s like a hidden digital tax. And there are lots of risks for families here, too, that people, well, you know, but people don’t want to talk about it while we’re designing and talking about designing a more and more expansive system to make people visible on these networks. So there’s backend hacking, people breaking into, this happens in South Africa. I’ve yet to see what it looks like anywhere else. So when people break in, they steal the encryption codes and they can essentially help themselves to people’s online accounts. Lots of examples of that. We have lots of examples, as everybody else does, of what we call pig butchering, people being kind of, you know, seduced into giving away their money to, sometimes members of the family, but sometimes people they meet online. And all of that worry, that kind of fear of the dangers of moving the poor into the payment system was before the Trump administration, right? Which has now seen a wholesale withdrawal from the regulatory state. And you know what this looks like, I’m not going to repeat it, but, you know, the key institutions, the SEC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and probably more important than anything else for us was this Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which made companies that behave badly, literally hand themselves into the Department of Justice in the United States. And that’s a wide range. There are dozens of companies that did this, including some famous examples from Brazil. And that kind of regulatory, whatever one calls it, context, has disappeared. All right, so if we don’t ignore all of these problems, what should we be doing? That’s, I suppose, the question. And the fundamental issue really has to be making what we call metrics of exclusion much more visible. So while we’re talking about DPI, what happens with DPI is we make credit scores visible. That’s the big driver. So companies can now build either their own system or they can share data. And it puts individuals in a, you know, truthfully, I’m not sure they’re the beneficiaries of this, I’m not sure. sure that financial inclusion is not much evidence. There’s a lot of good evidence that in fact the overwhelming effect of a kind of mass digital lending system is is actually increasing poverty. It’s not fixing the problem. So exclusion and metrics and publishing that should be immediately on the Web site. It should be. This is the number of people whose identity numbers are at the moment disabled. And this is how long it’s taken for us to basically answer queries around those numbers. I can tell you what this looks like in South Africa. There was a court case last year in January where the Department of Home Affairs admitted that two million identity numbers had been turned off turning off. And in our current system just involves editing literally a comment field in on the third page of the population register. And that disables the identity number from functioning. It means you cannot access the birth of your child. Can’t bury your parents on access to bank accounts. You cannot function digitally. All these Estonian capacities people like to talk about. They’re very easily switched off in the current system. And that needs to be much more carefully regulated. So officials who edit the population register they need to be subject to exactly the same kind of oversight as the as the people who are being essentially identified by. So and then I’d say the third big issue is making space for what we call trusted fiduciaries. I think it has to be more than lawyers. These have to be officials almost or semi-private officials who are self-regulated in the first instance who can interact with this DPI engine. The nicest example of how this actually works in South Africa are the undertakers. So that you know we have excellent death registration and very quick well handled death documentation that when someone dies they get very quickly documented. And the reason is that undertakers earn a fortune from putting bodies in the ground and they’ve been given granted access to the population register in order. it to speed up that whole process. Now we need something like that that helps when you know you go to get an identity documents and you see that the population registers misspelled your name mischaracterize your gender. You know there are so many mistakes. Once you start once you’ve lived with a big powerful system like we have for generations the areas become they sort of lurk in the databases. And as soon as you build a nice clever joined up into operable system you begin to see the dangers of that for all sorts of things. You now can’t access health care because you somehow fall in foul of a maternity suit or paternity suit in the in another area of the state’s databases.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks Keith. I think those are some interesting things I’ve thought for us. And I think lots for also the panel like you know I will definitely come back to you with some questions. Maybe I’ll try and turn to 3D now in terms of I think you know Luca and Keith gave very different starting points for DPI in terms of you know what the political social legacy set of context was in that space. And I’m curious. And I think some of the points that were raised really was around sovereignty around security and governance around transparency access to data in order to kind of build robust systems. So I’m curious from your research and your experience what do you think are some of the prerequisites as far as regulation and governance is concerned to really build a people centered DPI. Thanks.

Smriti Parsheera: They are such a pleasure to be a part of such a stellar panel. Let me just begin by introducing you know the organization I’m with Intelligent Foundation in case people don’t know of them. It’s a nonprofit that works on financial inclusion and open payments. But I should caveat the views I’m expressing here are my own as a researcher and civil society participant from India. And I’m going to try and address that and also speak to some of the points that were made earlier by you know first thing what is the good of the moment that we are in. This momentum that we are seeing around DPI as Keith said not all of it is new. Not all these interventions are new. But what is new is the firepower that’s going. I think that’s a good direction to be going in, but I want to add some observations around, you know, what could be done better, and I think the first thing I want to bring in is, you know, if you think about the participants in this ecosystem broadly for the state, the markets, the civil society, and the actual public, who is the, you know, the beneficiary of this, you know, this ecosystem, who is the, you know, the driver of this ecosystem, who is the, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the beneficiary, ultimately, of, supposed to be the beneficiary of all of these developments, and there is this very strong state-market alliance that we are seeing, both in terms of the implementation of DPI, in terms of how it’s being developed, how it’s being rolled out, but also in terms of the philosophy behind DPI, right? So if, in the Indian context, we often see the entities which are developing DPI being called as a startup in the government, right? So there is this valorization of the idea of startup, of the idea of markets, Aadhaar, which is our digital ID program, has been called as a poverty killer app, you know? So a lot of phrases, a lot of thinking, philosophy, coming from this idea, valorization of the way, you know, the Silicon Valley has developed, but also, as Luca said, it’s a counter to the way Silicon Valley has developed and, you know, proliferated in all over the Global South, in particular. So DPI is, in that sense, both a counter, but also runs the risk of following some of that same playbook, and I think that’s the first thing we need to be a little worried about. And in my work, I, you know, use this concept of an alt big tech. So in the process of being a pushback against big tech, could we be creating another ecosystem which is pursuing scale in the same reckless manner, which is, you know, really blind to due process, really blind to other things in the pursuit of reaching scale fast? So I think those are things to be conscious about in the DPI story. The second thing I want to focus on is when we talk about the public in DPI, there are many, you know, interpretations, as Luca said, is it public in terms of ownership? Is it? public in terms of the deployment landscape, but I think the really important question is, is it public in terms of the participation? And there again, the question is, when we are thinking about, you know, the Global South context, very often we are in ecosystems where, you know, things like regulatory impact assessment, cost-benefit analysis are not part of the day-to-day culture, and there are exceptions like the TRAI in India, which has this very robust culture of transparency and accountability in its regulation-making process, but that’s unfortunately not something which trickles down to all agencies, and it’s certainly not something we’ve seen in the deployment of the DPI process, so it has been very much a top-down sort of approach, and that’s something to think about. The linked point of that is really, you know, the role of civil society in all of this, and I think the fundamental question of who is civil society, right? Usually you think of civil society by definition as something which is, you know, separate from the state and markets, it’s a voluntary association of people who assemble around certain values, but those values could be very different. The values could be about, you know, that the route for empowerment is through market-based mechanism, and that’s one value, or the value could be that you need to push for more human rights and think about, that’s another value, and I think it’s open for debate which value is better than the other, but it is important to have space for both these values reflected in the platform, and sometimes it does happen that, you know, certain allied values find a space in internal debates, but values which are not aligned either have to resort to the media or have to resort to courts to find a voice, so I think that’s an important conversation to shift that and really bring in some, you know, first principles, accountability, participation. And the final point I want to make from the Indian experience, I think I’ve been a bit dull and negative in what I’ve said, but I want to bring in a point about the value of social construction. Right, so much of what we are thinking about DPI from different perspectives is about techno-determinism. There are some people who think, like, this is the path to, you know, to kind of empowerment, to inclusion. There are some people who think this is the path, a sure path to a… So, there is a counter view that there is a process of social construction that is happening in the DPI deployment. I’ll give the example of Aadhaar in the Indian context. So, when it was first deployed, the idea from the agencies was that this would just be a number, this would not be a card, right? But when society accepted it, they said, you know, we actually need a card, we are used to a card as a form of identity, and the, you know, over time the way it was accepted by society and by the authority was that now it is accepted as a form of card. Similarly, several other features like, you know, initially, whenever you would use your Aadhaar, you would use those digits and, you know, that particular number, but over time a virtual version of it has emerged as a part of the pushback, as a part of the questions by, you know, before the court, the idea that, you know, can you have a masked ID where instead of revealing your main ID everywhere, you just reveal this virtual ID. So, there has been positive social construction which has taken place, but again, coming back to the question of participation, very often, you know, these are brought as new mechanisms, but because they are not originating from the agency itself, they’re coming back as a, you know, as a pushback, as a way to accommodate. Sometimes they don’t become the mainstream solution, and I think that’s where we need to go in terms of DPI in recognizing that there is a lot of, just from experience, from your own country, from each other’s country, so as others do, you know, digital ID, I think it would be valuable to look at the default as virtual ID as opposed to the main ID, to learn from each other’s experience, and I think that would be a positive way to proceed with DPI.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Smriti . Lots of little nuggets for me to pick up on later. Maybe I’m going to now turn to Bidisha, as you’re coming online, and I think I want to double-click on the question of ownership. I think we just heard different takes on it, you know, in terms of what Brazil’s experience has been in terms of, you know, these being owned by truly public agencies, and therefore the Right to Information Act and FOIAs kind of play in that space. We are hearing sort of a mixed bag of reactions in terms of, you know, DPIs elsewhere, where maybe the public agency is not fully in charge. in terms are fully present in terms of the ownership of the system. And I think just to build on that, DPS are also highly modular systems, right? It’s not just one big technology. There’s multiple parts to it, multiple stakeholders at play. And to Sridhi’s point, really this conversion from, you know, are we actually creating another monopoly in order to tackle, you know, sort of the existing monopoly, right? So how do we think about monopolization and ownership in this space as well? So I’m curious if you could speak a little bit more to that in terms of, you know, your research, how you’re thinking about, how do we truly make DPI a public interest technology and a public facing technology? And how should policymakers, civil society and other stakeholders be thinking about ownership within the DPI architecture?

Bidisha Chaudhury: Thank you, Diya. And thank you everyone for, I think they’ve all made excellent points. I don’t know how much new things I can add to the points that have already been made. But just to respond to the question of ownership and publicness in DPI, I want to underline, at least in the Indian context, the role, very important role of the state in, you know, in conceptualizing and implementing DPI. And not just building on Aadhaar, but if you look at UPI and then other efforts, even though there has been very, very close partnership between the state and the market, which is also not new in the Indian context and elsewhere state market partnership has always been there. But particularly in case of DPIs, I think there are three specific roles that the Indian state has played. And they have been very clear in owning this DPI, even though there has been considerable amount of effort by, I would say, the software industry partnership in India. And I see these three roles as creating an institutional space, like even the creation of NPCI to, you know, push forward. forward the agenda of financial innovation or digitalization of financial products. The state and the RBI has played a very important role in creating that kind of an institutional space where the DPI-like innovation can take place. The second has been in implementation of DPIs or pushing for implementation of DPI and specifically scaling this up. Came through very, very clear state policy. So Aadhaar was mandated for all welfare, right? So this cannot happen. This kind of scale cannot be achieved without the intervention of the state. The same we see for UPI that all, you know, the fact that all welfare accounts needs to be connected to a mobile phone number and a zero balance bank account. That created that whole scale of public who will now be the market for financial innovation or digital financial inclusion. So here the state played very important role for scaling up DPI or even creating the possibility of scaling up something like an UPI. And the other role that the state plays is regulatory role that how to regulate different, this multi-stakeholder ecosystem that we have, how to regulate each of these stakeholders. But having said that, so I think in the case of India, the state has been very much there in terms of subsidizing the infrastructure on which these are built in regulating these infrastructural spaces and stakeholder and also scaling up this infrastructure to, you know, much of the Indian population, let’s say. But I think the word of caution that I would just put here that while the state does play an important role and I think that should play an important role, especially in a global majority, where the role of the state. in bringing in development, bringing in inclusion is more, should be more explicitly realized. But the caution here, I’ll just take the example of UPI in this case. So one of the things that came out of our research is that when the state is regulating and when you are relying on a very, very global digital infrastructure or global digital platform, there is always, there is already very, very big players. So I understand the DPI is kind of thought as an alternative to big tech, this question of digital sovereignty. But to what extent the big tech can, like you can bring, create an alternative infrastructure. And here I mean the software and the technological infrastructure, which is truly independent of the big tech is something we need to really explore and ask more carefully. For example, one of the things that came up in our study of UPI in India is that even though it is seen as something which is owned by the state, to some extent, subsidized by the state, scaled by the state, the major traffic that is, that controls the UPI ecosystem, or at least the volume of transaction, is GPA. So much so that many of the vendors, small scale vendors that we interview, they don’t even think of UPI as a public infrastructure. They kind of synonymously think of it as a Google infrastructure. So, you know, even without knowing much about it, because that’s what they use nonstop, you know, constantly, like GPay, PhonePay, PhonePay is a Walmart subsidiary. So they call this infrastructure as GPay, or as PhonePay. So they don’t even think of it as an UPI which is owned by the state, or maybe not owned by, maintained and sustained by the state. So I think that is where it is, it becomes very critical to understand, or even explore that how do we actually circumvent. the influence of the big tech when we rely on an infrastructure where the big tech interests are so much more embedded already. I think so that’s a cautionary tale with which I will stop.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Bidisha. I think we’ve heard quite a bit from our non-state stakeholders, if I may, as the term of the multilateral space goes, in terms of the various iterations of DPI, questions around ownership, questions around sovereignty, some positive, some sort of cautionary tale. So it’s been quite a mixed bag, and I think that’s really great because I think it starts demonstrating that not all DPI is the same. It is supposed to be different, and it is in this monolithic technology that just gets replicated around the world, and I think that’s a really important piece of that puzzle. But I will now turn to our government stakeholders, perhaps, in terms of you’ve heard quite a bit from the various panelists here, and maybe I’ll start with you, Mr. Singh, in terms of India has come up quite a bit in this conversation, as it should. I think India has been such a leader in the DPI space in terms of really setting that mark, demonstrating how it’s possible for a global majority country to pull something like that together, and a very deliberate role of the state in terms of tackling issues of inclusion, of whether it’s financial inclusion, whether it is identity inclusion, whether it is socioeconomic inclusion. There have been multiple layers of that, but we’ve also heard these concerns around ownership, these questions around what is really the role of the state? How does the state work with the broader software ecosystem? And perhaps, what are some of the regulatory considerations as the state thinks about scaling this technology? So maybe I’ll turn to you to respond a bit to that, and just one add-on to that question is I know while the DPI infrastructure is a very national, domestic play, India has also been leading in terms of making. need global, right? So I’m curious also as you’re thinking through your response, how does India see sort of its learnings nationally play out in terms of the global scaling of the technology, and particularly some of the principles that it carries forward?

Sheo Bhadra Singh: Thank you, dear. I would just like to start with the problem statement, what actually we are looking at to solve. Because a lot of the times, we go directly to the issues related to privacy and secrecy and all the things. But the problem, and particularly in India, what we were actually looking at is a large section of population which was not having access to the public services. So this was the main driving theme. And when we embarked on this journey of DPI, I think most of us were not aware that this will be named as DPI at all. So because Aadhaar came way back in, I think, 2009, 2010. And that actually laid the foundation of the present-day DPI is what we are having. So the basic requirement to give public services down the pyramid to everybody, access to the public services, was the basic requirement through which this journey started. And once we had the Aadhaar digital identity, and in the present case, we are at almost 1.33 billion Indians are having the Aadhaar digital identity. And that forms the basis of all our services, which are extended to. And once these services are available, it is being used by not only those who were earlier not basically accessing these services. It is being used by the, it has become a citizen-centric. services now. So when we embarked, now we are a lot of in the world it is being discussed actually what DPI is and what should be the foundational principles of these DPI has to be. But as far as we are concerned, we have our own foundational principles when we embarked our journey. And let me say that as we negotiate, as we travel, as we implement, as we learn, we always have some aspects which we change and introduce in our systems. So nothing becomes you can say that it is not like things being cast in stone. Based on our experiences, there has been some judicial pronouncements also. And based on those, we make changes in our systems and we try to be transparent. So the basic principles which we actually have in our systems, I would just like to go through maybe in case of taking the risk of repetition also that we have certain principles like eliminate economic, technical and social barriers. Then the system has to be modular and scalable. Keep privacy enhancing technologies and security features within the core design to ensure individual privacy, data protection and resilience based on standards. And then we have laws, regulations and policies should ensure that these systems are transparently governed and promote competition. So these are the basic principles through which we have been building our DPIs. The government has been the major source of inspiration, major source of finance also in these cases. But I’ll not say that it is basically driven by government. There are a lot of individuals, a lot of organizations who are participating. and helping us build the DPIs. Now once we have this DPIs in place, I just wanted, because we have an experience of already implementing and achieving the scale, which we can showcase to the world at large, and what are the changes it actually makes to the society. I’d just like to give some details of that. But before that, once the Aadhaar was in place, digital identity was in place, we had a challenge of how to provide the financial inclusion to the large section of the society. Most of the Indians, maybe about 10 years back, they were not having bank accounts also. So we went through this digital identity of Aadhaar, and in India, we open an account maybe in less than half a minute. The KYC is being done through Aadhaar, and an account is opened, and that account gets mostly operated through a mobile. So there was in parallel the 4G was being implemented all over India. Mobile phones and the broadband was actually proliferating at a very fast pace, and digital identity, people got, the accounts were being opened, and in the Jan Dhan account, what we call, is the zero balance account which is being opened. The present count is 550 million. So this is the number, so these people who are basically out of any financial inclusion, they got a platform, they got, it is just. a mind-boggling figures, which I am actually quoting, and so many people were out of the banking system. And just because we had these DPIs, we had these platforms, the financial inclusion of large proportion of our population actually happened. Once they were part of the banking system, there were a lot of benefits government was giving, which came to their accounts, money was getting transferred to their accounts, right from building toilets in the villages to building houses in the villages, and pensions were being given. So the experience of India was not very good in giving these benefits to the people because a lot of the proportion of it was being siphoned off so the direct benefit transfer actually came into being. And then UPI happened. UPI happened much at a later date while we had an Aadhaar identity, we had this Jan Dhan account, and what UPI did was that the transaction through the mobile bank happened at a very fast pace. So people adopted, they had an account, so they were able to transact. So these things actually happened, and now, in fact, the last month I am having the details, 18.77 billion transactions were $290 billion. That is only for the month of 2025. The adoption of UPI has been so fast because we had a system of accounts, we had a system of digital identity already in place. And then now India is actually building upon all these advantages. There are three or four examples which I just need to quote to give the context to our audiences today. that we have a GEM, that is Government E-Market Place, where most of you may be aware that the state, federal, and the state governments is one of the biggest, does one of the biggest procurement of services and goods. In our case, there has been a DPI built on that, which we call GEM, and the facilities of procurement of goods and services to all the state governments and the federal government actually happens through that. And if I just give the figures, there are 11,000 products, 336 services, 1,64,000 buyers, and for last year, that is from the April of 2024 to March of 2025, there was a procurement of $625 billion through that. So, and what has happened is, actually before that, there was a small group of suppliers. They had actually controlled the market of procurement, the government was procuring through them. It has basically democratized the suppliers. It has enabled a person sitting in a village, a person sitting there in the remote part of the country to supply, to become a supplier to the government. This is how, actually, the transition is happening. Then we, I don’t know how many of you would be aware of Open Network of Digital Commerce, ONDC, which is being implemented. We have seen, actually, the platforms, which are basically, which provide e-commerce, have not been very democratic in nature. There are issues with small and medium enterprises to actually come on board on them. So, this ONDC also is being made for actually, it doesn’t. So, what we are doing is we are providing a platform for small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in the e-commerce activities. The government actually stops at or it doesn’t say that larger ones cannot come to our platform, but it actually enables small and medium-sized enterprises to actually, it enables them to participate in the e-commerce activity. We have in fact a very popular platform for small and medium-sized enterprises. We have a very large number of small and medium-sized enterprises in the common public, and the number is also, I would like to quote, is 787 million. And there are 409,000 health facilities which have been registered, and 648,000 health professionals. So, what it has done, that you have an animation, and you download to it, regular animation, and the hospitals are registered by the government, health professionals are registered by the government, you go to all these hospitals which are on board, show your card, give your number, and you get the facilities, and the payment is done, the government does the payment for that. So, it’s a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very difficult thing to do for a human citizen, and earlier, if you just imagine the numbers, and imagine whether it can be done without a DPI in place, the answer is absolutely no. So, in India, we had no option if we have to, the time was very short, services to be provided to the citizens was a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very difficult. Whether we could have done it without DPI, the answer is no. Whether we could have waited for the definitions to be finalized, the answer is no. We have embarked on our journey, we have achieved a lot, we still learn, and we and based on, there is another aspect, in fact, in our G20 presidency. We had included this DPI as one of the pillars and it was accepted, with certain changes which was made during the negotiations. And I think that was the time when the world actually woke up to the DPIs and started discussing about them. Although a lot of things were happening at other places, but now it is the time for all of us to sit together and to see that there has been a lot of experiences in other places also, how we can learn from them. And as far as India is concerned, we have offered free of cost to any country which wants to adopt DPI platform. Our prime minister has offered this during the G20 presidency, and it can be adopted by any country and we’ll be very happy to actually help that. Thank you.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: I think quite a bit of background from what India’s sort of problem statement was and how it kind of approached that larger ecosystem. And I think one of the things that was also interesting, I think India’s G20 presidency also came right after the pandemic, when the world also felt that if governments could not deliver public services and we were in a situation where physical infrastructures were no longer functional, then this was really the way forward. So I think many things kind of tied together and really helped propel DPI into the spotlight. I’m gonna turn to Armando, who has joined us online from the Dominican Republic. And I know it was very interesting to hear from Mr. Singh in terms of what India’s sort of problem statement was, what it was really trying to solve, and sort of the long journey it went through in terms of various iterations of what we now today know as DPI. I’m curious, Armando, as some, you know, leading a lot of the innovation that’s happening in the Dominican Republic in terms of reimagining government services, reimagining public-to-citizen relationships, and how do we sort of rethink digital transformation. So maybe you could share a bit more about what your experience has been in the DPI space, and also just building on the previous question, how is sort of the national priorities tying up to the more universal principles around DPI, and how is sort of Dominican Republic adopting some of those?

Armando Manzueta: Well, first of all, thank you very much for inviting me to this amazing panel. The conversation has been very rich, and I’m more than eager to share a bit of the work that we’re doing so far in the DR. For the Dominican Republic, the DPI as a concept is something that is fairly new. We basically started back in 2020 when we were thinking about how to solve societal-level problems that are tied to public services, especially when it comes to data, interoperability, and identity, and of course payments. So in that regard, for us, DPI is not just a set of technologies, but a nation-building tool, and one that must be grounded in rights, resilience, and trust. In that regard, basically there are two realities that are driving our adoption, and that’s one which is socially, since we’re responding to citizen demands for accessible and inclusive services that respects their dignity and privacy. Politically, in the sense that DPI enables a more transparent participatory result in the government, and the state of course, and economically, because for us it’s a letter for inclusion that is also unlocking opportunities for not just for the people on their feet, but also for small businesses, young women, and especially people that are in underserved areas. But we realized that we can only fulfill our promise to the people when the foundations are right, and for us that means doing a major groundwork for having a strong legal and regulatory frameworks around data protection. interoperability, and open standards, for us to establish institutions that ensure oversight and safeguard implementation, and of course, having institutions that are involved, especially from the third sector, the civil society, private sector, that the one way or another has some sort of shared responsibility on insight and oversight of the work the government is doing on that front. So, from the very beginning, we started first with the most tackling issue for us, which is data interoperability. So, we decided to build our own infrastructure and data exchange based on the work that the government of Estonia has done before on implementing this broad open source platform called XROAD for data exchange. We did local customization and implementation, and we are basically translating all the documentation into Spanish for institutions, and eventually private sector, to understand how it works and get on board on that. And from that, since we started implementing it in 2021, 2022, we probably have around 71, 72 institutions that are currently using the XROAD ecosystem for data exchange. And the result has been very interesting so far. What we face now, another issue, which is, of course, data governance. And now we’re rethinking on how data governance actually works, not just for public services provision, but also how we can empower people on that front. And in that sense, we’re working on a new set of regulations around that principle. One that has focused not just on the data protection itself, but also on the quality of the data that is actually being exchanged. So, we’re working on defining proper data observability and orchestration method mechanisms, so we can actually make some of the principles around data protection something that should be easy and forcible, because sometimes these concepts can be very abstract and very difficult to grasp by institutions. analyze on a technical level. So in that front, defining this proper set of data rules and having the right platforms alongside the data exchange mechanism, it’s very important, especially for them, to be secure and to respect people’s rights on that front. And of course, having a way for this oversight mechanism that should be implemented from the civil society so they can keep the government accountable on the work that is doing on that front. When it comes for identity, basically what we started doing, since the government in the Democratic Republic has the peculiar characteristic that it doesn’t administrate directly the civil registry, although it’s a public institution, but it’s outside of the government. We have made several workarounds based on the work that we previously have done with data exchange. So what we decided was to build some sort of authentication platform for starting for public services that builds on the same principles of data protection, because it’s mostly focused on data minimization and the rights of the people to authorize what kind of personal data it can actually share to provide the minimum requirement for public services. So what we’re doing right now is basically working closely with several institutions, such as the CDPI, on defining a broader architecture for this data identity infrastructure alongside the civil registry authority for us to start providing different means of not just of data protection around identity, but also how we can actually start building this sort of verifiable credential standard that works for everybody and to start having these sort of documents that are actually verifiable, trustworthy, and of course, administered by the right authorities at the right time. And for payments, I think this is the area that we, somehow we have huge advancements because we have like real-time payments that are. actually enabled and effective and available for the universal population. But the way that it’s done is not necessarily the most efficient way. So the central bank, which is the owner of the ad infrastructure, is actually looking at ways to provide a pixel-like solution for the people that is also based on those principles that we’re trying to build. And of course, trying to have this sort of accountability around the society and also getting the private sector on board. So that solution, when it comes available to the people, actually gets adopted very easily and quickly, especially since the country has serious issues when it comes to financial inclusion. Because roughly half, for example, the population is financially excluded. And regarding the other half that is technically included, probably 30% are actually the ones that are receiving broader financial services, whether that’s digital or not. And we are finding ways to reverse that situation. And of course, having these sort of platforms will allow, especially, to do just that. Not necessarily in the way that we have solved the problem in Brazil, but it’s one of the options that are actually on the table. And we hope that we’re going to find ways to do this in the most inclusive way, but also having this participation for oversight and accountability for all the actors that must be involved in that part.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Armando. I think kind of really seeing that sort of spectrum of experiences, right? Sort of, you know, kind of India’s very long journey and now kind of Dominican Republic tackling some of the more emerging challenges in this space. I will come to audience questions right after we bring Rasmus in. So if you have a burning question, now is the time to start thinking about it so that you can ask it in a few minutes. Rasmus, maybe turning to you. Estonia is sort of the other major example in the DPI space. And similar to India, I think it has a very long legacy of really digitizing e-government services. digital, but thinking about e-government services, public to citizen delivery, and solving some of the problems that perhaps Dominican Republic is going through right now, and the whole world is going to know. So think about, how should we think about DPA? What is the right governance model? What are the different ways in which we can really cut down some of the costs of it? So there’s many questions on the table, but I would love to know from you, what has Estonia’s experience been in this space, one. But also just to build on that, Estonia is also leading on the rights respecting DPA principles through the Freedom Online Coalition. And so maybe if you can also tie in how Estonia has actually implemented some of those principles in its past, or how it has taught to those principles, as it is now thinking about either its legacy DPA, or sort of emerging DPA iterations in its work.

Rasmus Lumi: Thank you very much. Well, maybe I should start by saying that when in the beginning, when you introduced me as being on the extreme left, I just wanted to clarify that it doesn’t necessarily reflect my political views. Anyway, I think many great angles and aspects have been raised, and the questions you are posing to me now also probably would allow for hours of discussion. But of course, I will stick to just some of the main things for now, which would probably be the fundamentals of the DPA, because we have already heard a lot about the practical backgrounds of why DPA is being built, and so on. So maybe I will get also to the Freedom Online Coalition’s principles of the DPA, as Estonia is in 2025 the chair of the Freedom Online Coalition. But as a representative of Estonia, I I definitely can give a bit of a background as to how we have built it up over the course of for now I think around 25 years, and how we have managed to tie the fundamentals into the actual digital solutions. So as I said, Estonia I think started with its digital public infrastructure in the beginning of I believe 2000 or so, around 25 years ago, and this has really allowed us to see over the years how this digital public infrastructure and all this digital governance has been able to transform the society, and how it has empowered the citizens and how it has fostered economic growth and so on. At the same time of course we have always been very mindful and vigilant about the risks that this has also brought forward, and we have always tried to mitigate those risks to the best of our knowledge at every certain time or time period when something has been built. Now many of the principles that already have also been mentioned here during previous interventions, I mean these principles seem to be self-evident, but they don’t necessarily self-evidently work within the DPI systems, and there also can be very different understandings of what does it mean for example privacy or security within the digital public infrastructure. I will bring you one example which would be that for example when we talk about privacy then within the DPI, does that mean that the person’s data or the information about the person is private to the outside users? Or is it also private on the inside of the DPI, meaning that is there any control or checks and balances on how, so to speak, the owner of the DPI or the government, how they can access this information about the person? I think these are two different concepts, and that’s why, for example, what we have done in Estonia is that one of the very key principles for our DPI is that every citizen is the owner of their own data and has full control of it. In practice, it means that any user, any Estonian citizen can at any time verify which government official or any other person has accessed their personal data within the DPI systems. So this is our way of trying to make sure that there is preventive accountability for the use of personal data within the DPI. Now, in practice, there are also some other important elements which we have prioritized from the very beginning, and one, of course, would be interoperability, meaning that Estonia’s digital public infrastructure works on a platform which is called Crossroad, and the point is that this is a platform that allows for all different institutions to manage their own systems, but they’re all interconnected on the same platform, allowing for the citizens. and to actually be able to access everything from one place. And as I said, already being able to control their own data. Then what was also mentioned and what we have already done since the very beginning is the e-identity. And this is the key or the central part of the whole system, which allows for the people to actually access all the services. And also, in the case of Estonia, it has already also been taken so far as to be able to participate electronically in the elections and so on. The so-called iVoting, Internet voting, we can do it on the computer as well. At the same time, we have been trying to maximize the possibility for people to access all government services, or I don’t know if they can be called necessarily government services but public services, to close in on having 100% of the services being able to be accessed by people. And I think, not sure, but I think divorce is now, I think, the only thing that we cannot do online yet. But I think as the society develops, then that will be possible as well. But now, not to waste too much time, just I would run very quickly through the Freedom Online Coalition’s work currently, which is for this year in the program of action. Estonia, as the chair, has prioritized rights respecting DPI principles, which obviously would be something that we have already naturally kind of built into our digital public infrastructure. And as the chair of the Freedom Online Coalition, we are hoping that the coalition could… could bring this to the global attention as well. Many of those principles, as I said before, are quite natural. There is one thing that is extremely natural, but you cannot write it into anything. It’s not a standard, and you cannot even put it as a principle, and this is called trust. The public trust is something that is actually the most important thing. You can force people to do anything, but without trust, you will not get the most out of whatever you’re building, because people will not want to use it. But anyway, so trust we have not been able to include into the principles, but what we have included in the principles are the notions of human-centered solutions, meaning that everything has to be focused on humans when we develop technology or digital solutions. Everything must serve this objective. Then something very important, which is inclusivity, and we are feeling very strongly about everybody’s need to have access to the Internet, to all the digital services and skills, in order to be able to benefit from digital transformation. Then we believe that international human rights standards should be followed, because otherwise there are too many risks that we will immediately take in undermining the possibility of trust in these discussions. Transparency and accountability, I think, speak for themselves. Everybody probably realizes that we need this to minimize the negative impact of technologies on human rights. Privacy and security, we have already talked about. Then societal context. I think everybody agrees that their own societies, their own communities need to be respected with their own particular – and so on and this is also very important to make any digital public infrastructure work effectively to take into account a societal context. Then sustainability and resilience and this is because it is important to build sustainable programs and to be able to maximize long-term impact. Data-driven. DPI must be data-driven because we want to ensure that quality information is available for decision-making. Interoperability that I mentioned in our case as well we do want to promote interoperable systems which work together seamlessly across organizations. It will make everything cheaper, it will make everything more effective, it will be easier for both the users and the administrators or managers of the systems. Then of course technology neutrality because we we believe that the digital public infrastructure should be built in a technology neutral manner. Openness of course open approach to digital development. It means open standards, open source, open data. This is something that will nicely tie in with privacy and security. And finally of course collaboration meaning both collaboration domestically and and also on the international level. So these are the principles that Freedom Online Coalition is currently working on. We hope to be able to adopt them during this year and then they may be able to serve as some like a guiding light to everybody who wishes to further develop their own digital public infrastructure. Thank you.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks Rasmus. A very comprehensive set of principles I think for all of our stakeholders to think through. We’ve reached we don’t have a lot of time for our panel so I’m curious if anybody in the audience here has any questions they would like to ask. the panel. There are mics there, but we’re also a very intimate room, so also I think we can hear if people are speaking. Or maybe if online also. Yeah, we actually have an online question, but I wanted to make sure. Okay, great. I think we have an online question. I think Rasmus touched on it a little bit more, so maybe, oh, okay, yes. Thank you. You should take the mic. Yeah, maybe the mic will be useful.

Audience: Thank you very much for this insightful question. My name is Elizabeth. My first, I have two questions, if you don’t mind. My first question is to Professor Belli. Thank you very much for the insights around, like, collaboration between government and other stakeholders. I had worked with the government of Nigeria on digital policy reforms, one of which was digitizing business registration processes to reduce the time, the cost, and the procedure of doing business. And my experience with public service is there’s still that gap in terms of getting that sort of entrepreneurial mindset, in seeing how this could be of great benefit, and then fully owning this service, service delivery to the public. So I now currently work with a mobile industry association, and the big question is, for telcos, mobile network operators, what are, like, the opportunities in terms of collaborating with government? Because there’s this buzz around mobile data. Increasingly, mobile devices are becoming very instrumental in increasing access to public services, to digital services across the world, especially in emerging markets. So I don’t know if you could share some examples and some insights on that, that would be great. The second question I have is to Professor Breckenridge. out the session in South Africa and also to Simriti. I’m so sorry. I referred to it properly. It’s on digital financial inclusion. So the comments around really thinking through on how we can guard against digital financial inclusion not being a risk more or less an innovation addressing the problem as opposed to being a risk for misuse, abuse, data harvesting and the likes. And it got me thinking around AI ethics and transparency. And my question is to Professor Breckenridge in South Africa. What is, what would you say are like top priorities in terms of building this very strong AI ethical standards around that? And for Simriti, I’m sorry once again, is in the context of digital financial inclusion. Thank you very much.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thank you. Before I go to the panelists to respond to this question, we also have some online questions along the same lines. Maybe I can tie the two questions together just in the interest of time. I think we also have an online question that is also asking similar sort of approach as to how do we actually weave in some of the human rights principles within the DPI architecture. And then particularly just speaking on the AI piece, you know, we are now also seeing a moment where using the existing DPI, a lot of AI developments are happening, a lot of API access is being provided. And so that architecture is also scaling some of the AI expansion particularly in the global majority. So as we think about these expansions, how do we actually weave in some of these principles that Rasmus mentioned but also some of the learnings that we have had in the past? And where do the different stakeholders that we have, whether civil society, technical communities, what could be their different roles be? So that’s a question from the online audience and maybe it’ll be a good way to kind of weave them in. So maybe Luca, since we can start with you and then I can maybe turn to some of the other speakers.

Luca Belli: Yeah, I think those questions are excellent and I So, I’m going to talk a little bit about what we are doing in the digital world and what we are doing in the digital world. And I think this actually allows me to delve a little bit more into the details of what could be the success or the failure of this kind of efforts. I think as anything in digital, one has to consider that we are dealing with systems, right? There are a lot of elements and a lot of layers. I like the India stock vision because it revisualizes that the system has layers. So, there are a lot of layers. And the reason why the central bank is successful in implementing PIX, the other reason is because they are a very independent, well-resourced institution, which is key for the success of the DPIs, knowing that the institution that implement them understand what they are doing. They have the resources to do this, both intellectual and financial resources to stimulate this. And they are able to implement it with other stakeholders. So, I think this is a very good example of how the PIX was introduced. So, in the context of PIX and the Brazilian central bank, they really understood that it was not only the PIX, but it was how the PIX was introduced, and they understood very well the system. Let me give you a very concrete example of why. So, Brazil, as most global south countries, although Brazil has a very good level of connectivity, most of the country is not meaningfully connected. As most of the global south, we are connected to the internet, we are connected to the internet, we are connected to the internet, we are connected to social media, and all the rest is very expensive, so, if you want to introduce a new digital service, a DPI, people will not use it, because they have to spend money, and that is why, when the Brazilian government was going to introduce PIX, and META proposed to introduce what’s a payment, three months before the PIX, the Brazilian central bank had the power to minimize, in fact, the risk of falling at the beginning of the first section of the world, and watch the power of the PIX entering force due to competition, data protection, and consumer protection. We will speed this up a little bit, but before it end, a little cautious shift for today. So, they understood very well that if WhatsApp had introduced WhatsApp payment before the PIX, today we would not be celebrating the PIX as a great success. Everyone in Brazil would be using WhatsApp payment. And that leads me also to celebrate another great success of India, and I think that colleagues from the Telecom Authority of India should be really praised for their vision in 2016 when they adopted very strong net neutrality rules that prohibited zero rating in India. And I think that the reason why DPIs have been so successful in India, and I think this is the greatest untold story of good digital sovereignty, India prohibited zero rating in 2016. It’s the only global South country that did this, and the result is not only that connectivity prices have dropped by 90% and connectivity has boomed more than 300% of adoption increase in the past eight years, but also that India is experiencing a belle époque of innovation. Why? Because you can access everything. You don’t have only social media for free and all the rest extremely expensive. Everything is cheap. And that is something that you need to consider. So, you need really to have a systemic vision before thinking about the DPI, and also you need to have an institution that is able to implement that vision. We had this chance in Brazil with the Brazilian Central Bank. I’m not sure all other institutions would be able to do this same success.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Luca. Smriti , I’ll turn to the question specifically to you on the role of different stakeholders in that process.

Smriti Parsheera: Yeah, thanks for that question. You know, on the financial inclusion question and stakeholders in that process, I think it’s an important question to think about what were the causes of exclusion, and I think to the extent ID was a cause, you know, we have seen DPIs addressing that, but there is, I think, an underlying question that, you know, what sort of ID did you need? Do you necessarily need a biometric-based ID to solve for financial inclusion? I think those are the debates to be had. So, I think, you know, I think it’s important for us to think about, you know, how do we define financial inclusion? How do we define it in terms of, you know, how do we, you know, certainly, you know, have recognition and being able to verify and identify is a building block. The other question, I think, which is important to the DPI conversation is about, you know, how do you define financial inclusion? Is it only about payments and remittances? A lot of the DPI focuses around that, or is it about a broader bouquet of financial services? And are we thinking about, you know, insurance? Are we thinking about DPI on those fronts? So far, we don’t very actively seem to be solving those through DPI, and I think that’s where, you know, the next layer of thinking should be.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Smriti . Keith, there’s a question from, specifically, for South Africa, as well, from your experience. And then maybe just for you. Sorry? I don’t think it’s a South African question.

Keith Breckenridge: I think it’s a global question. For me, the first question is the liability question. You know, who should take responsibility? Someone finds out your information on Facebook, uses a network provider to send you an enticing SMS, you click on the link, and then your pension fund is gone, you know? And this is happening, let’s be honest, it’s happening to, you know, a significant proportion of the populations that are meant to be basically getting resources and capabilities from this. And I think it may be on the age. So, I’m 60, which is, you know, I spent quite a lot of time working with people who are 85, 90, old people, the normal old people who are the actual targets. They’re not 25-year-old Estonians, they’re 80-year-old Africans, and they really don’t have the skill set that they need, that the designers of these systems are assuming are actually available to them. They can’t, they don’t see the buttons, they can’t read the text, they can’t, you know, they can’t, you know, they can’t, you know, they can’t read the text, it’s so easy for them to be robbed. I mean, it’s truly a joke. And no one is really looking at this. No one wants to take it seriously. seriously. The only people who are also the English the British are doing this and you know this they’ve imposed an eighty five thousand pound liability on the banks. Regardless of what happens someone empties your bank account. The banks are responsible. And that’s as far as I can see the only country in the world that’s doing that. And when we start talking about sharing liability the network providers will stop allowing criminals SMS to follow to flow on their systems. You know then then we can talk. So if we’re doing this let’s be aware of what we’re doing. We’re building an infrastructure that’s going to make a huge population newly vulnerable to really serious crimes. And there’s no discussion of what we should be doing about that. So I would start with that. I think that the second. The second issue for me is really the question about asset creation. I’m much more worried about asset creation than I am about what we call usurious interest rates. It’s people need to be getting something out of these mobile systems. It’s not enough to make it a kind of subsistence question. We have to look for how people can create buy things material things that they can keep and not turn it towards consumption. And that for me is fundamentally a matter of fiduciaries and also these kind of collective forms of savings association that are very common everywhere. You find them of one kind or another. They’re very normal. But DPI privileges what we call individual biographical credit surveillance. It gives you an ID number that makes the ID number the core of the credit scoring system. It’s also one of the reasons why everywhere even in the U.S. firms are much less visible. That’s the real problem we’ve got. And again I’d like to hear the engineers who are building this huge infrastructure that’s putting us all at risk speak about the implications of that.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks Keith. In the interest of time maybe I’m going to you know probably not come back to Sreti Luka and Keith but actually give Bidisha Armando. So, Mr. Singh here and Rasmus, a chance to give their closing remarks with like one quick question, which is also from the participants, is really how do we think about weaving in these principles into DPI governance? Some are very legacy systems, some are newer systems, so how do we actually do it? So maybe a quick 30-second, I’ll start with Rasmus.

Rasmus Lumi: Well, I will use my 30 seconds to maybe be quiet. I don’t know how to actually do it. I can only maybe refer to or reuse something I said 10 years ago and with reference with what Keith was mentioning about old people, young people, that I am firmly confident that old people are not as stupid as we think they are and young people are not as smart as we think they are, even in digital.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Fair point. Bidisha?

Bidisha Chaudhury: Yeah, I also don’t have a profound thought last, you know, closing statement, but I think one thing that in the discussion we see that India being this success story in terms or other countries being success story in terms of how many people have bank accounts or how many people, so my broader question would be like, is digitalization equal to inclusion? Is the question that I think I would end with.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Bidisha. Armando?

Armando Manzueta: Well, building on the same statements that preceded me, basically, I just want to remark that to earn people’s trust, DPIs must be more than efficient. They must be ethical, inclusive, and accountable. And that means that safeguards, so an AI on the broad DPI effort should be qualified into law, should be embedded into law, ensuring that civil society has a seat on the table, and making systems transparent and elitable. We in the Dominican Republic, we are committed to that. we’re actually trying to do that. We’re committed to building a DPI, not just as a government infrastructure, but rather a civic infrastructure that are governed not just by code, but by values that protects people and empowers them to achieve their very best. That’s all I can say.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Armando. Over to you, Mr. Singh, last word.

Sheo Bhadra Singh: I would just like to say that any DPI or any system which is being built has to be user-centric, citizen-centric, and the goal and the principles have to be to how the society is to be served. That is the basic principles, and everything else can be actually built. There are no issues.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Wonderful, on that closing thought of building people-centered DPI, thank you, everyone, for joining in on our panel. I’m sure lunch is being served right now, so I hope to continue the conversation. Thank you for all our participants for joining and staying on, and I look forward to the next IGF. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

DPI requires strong institutional capacity and multi-stakeholder governance

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Sheo Bhadra Singh
– Armando Manzueta
– Rasmus Lumi

Arguments

Successful DPI implementation requires independent, well-resourced institutions that understand the technology and can work with stakeholders, plus systemic vision considering connectivity and affordability – Institutional Capacity Requirements

Indian state played three key roles: creating institutional space (NPCI), scaling through policy mandates, and regulatory oversight of multi-stakeholder ecosystem – State Leadership Model

Dominican Republic emphasizes shared responsibility and oversight from civil society and private sector in DPI governance and implementation – Multi-stakeholder Oversight

Freedom Online Coalition’s rights-respecting DPI principles include human-centered solutions, inclusivity, transparency, privacy, security, sustainability, data-driven approaches, and technology neutrality – Rights-Based Principles Framework

Summary

All speakers agree that successful DPI implementation requires capable institutions with adequate resources, technical expertise, and the ability to coordinate multiple stakeholders including government, private sector, and civil society.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

User-centric and citizen-centric design is fundamental to DPI success

Speakers

– Sheo Bhadra Singh
– Armando Manzueta
– Rasmus Lumi

Arguments

DPI must be user-centric and citizen-centric with the goal of serving society as the basic principle from which everything else can be built – User-Centric Design Principle

DPI is not just a set of technologies but a nation-building tool that must be grounded in rights, resilience, and trust – Holistic Definition

Freedom Online Coalition’s rights-respecting DPI principles include human-centered solutions, inclusivity, transparency, privacy, security, sustainability, data-driven approaches, and technology neutrality – Rights-Based Principles Framework

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that DPI systems must prioritize citizen needs and human-centered design principles rather than technological or institutional priorities.

Topics

Development | Human rights principles | Infrastructure

Transparency and accountability are essential for DPI governance

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Keith Breckenridge
– Smriti Parsheera
– Rasmus Lumi

Arguments

Brazil’s PIX is truly public because it’s delivered by government (Central Bank), ensuring freedom of information access, unlike India’s foundation-based model that can avoid transparency requirements – Public vs. Quasi-Public Debate

Metrics of exclusion should be made visible, including publishing numbers of disabled identity accounts and response times for queries, to ensure accountability – Transparency in Exclusion

Civil society participation is limited in DPI deployment, which follows top-down approaches without robust transparency and accountability culture like regulatory impact assessments – Limited Participation

Freedom Online Coalition’s rights-respecting DPI principles include human-centered solutions, inclusivity, transparency, privacy, security, sustainability, data-driven approaches, and technology neutrality – Rights-Based Principles Framework

Summary

Speakers agree that DPI systems must incorporate strong transparency mechanisms and accountability measures, including public access to information about system performance and failures.

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

These speakers share critical perspectives on DPI implementation, highlighting risks of creating new forms of exclusion, exploitation, and corporate dominance despite public ownership claims.

Speakers

– Keith Breckenridge
– Smriti Parsheera
– Bidisha Chaudhury

Arguments

Financial inclusion through DPI risks encouraging usurious lending at 1% daily interest and pushing people into blacklisting systems, with South Africa seeing one trillion Rand spent on online gambling (one-third of GDP) – Financial Inclusion Risks

Strong state-market alliance exists in DPI implementation, but risks creating ‘alt big tech’ that pursues scale recklessly while being blind to due process – State-Market Alliance Concerns

Even with state-owned DPI like UPI, big tech influence remains embedded as major traffic controllers, with vendors often identifying the system with Google Pay rather than public infrastructure – Big Tech Persistence Challenge

Topics

Development | Digital business models | Consumer protection

Both speakers present DPI as successful tools for financial inclusion and breaking private monopolies, emphasizing the scale and positive impact of their respective national systems.

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Sheo Bhadra Singh

Arguments

Brazil’s PIX payment system broke Visa/MasterCard duopoly, reduced transaction costs from 3-5% to zero, and distributed data collection while maintaining public accountability through freedom of information laws – Brazilian Success Model

India’s UPI processed 18.77 billion transactions worth $290 billion in one month of 2025, demonstrating massive adoption enabled by existing digital identity and banking infrastructure – Transaction Volume Success

Topics

Development | Digital business models | Infrastructure

Both speakers emphasize the importance of genuine public ownership and citizen control over DPI systems, with strong accountability mechanisms and transparency requirements.

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Luca Belli

Arguments

Estonia’s model ensures every citizen owns and controls their data, with ability to verify which officials accessed their information, providing preventive accountability – Citizen Data Ownership

Brazil’s PIX is truly public because it’s delivered by government (Central Bank), ensuring freedom of information access, unlike India’s foundation-based model that can avoid transparency requirements – Public vs. Quasi-Public Debate

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Trust as fundamental but uncodifiable element

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Armando Manzueta

Arguments

Trust is the most important but uncodifiable element for DPI success – people can be forced to use systems but won’t maximize benefits without trust – Trust as Foundation

DPI is not just a set of technologies but a nation-building tool that must be grounded in rights, resilience, and trust – Holistic Definition

Explanation

It’s unexpected that both a European developed country representative and a Latin American developing country representative would emphasize trust as a fundamental but intangible requirement for DPI success, showing convergence across different development contexts.

Topics

Development | Human rights principles | Infrastructure

Need for liability frameworks and consumer protection

Speakers

– Keith Breckenridge
– Audience

Arguments

Need for liability frameworks where financial institutions bear responsibility for fraud losses, as implemented in Britain with £85,000 bank liability regardless of circumstances – Liability Gap Problem

Digital financial inclusion risks creating opportunities for misuse, abuse, and data harvesting rather than solving problems, requiring strong AI ethical standards and transparency measures – Financial Inclusion Risk Management

Explanation

The convergence between an academic researcher’s detailed analysis and audience concerns about consumer protection shows unexpected alignment on the need for stronger liability and protection frameworks in DPI systems.

Topics

Consumer protection | Legal and regulatory | Inclusive finance

Overall assessment

Summary

The panel shows strong consensus on foundational principles (user-centric design, transparency, institutional capacity) while revealing significant disagreement on DPI outcomes and risks. Government representatives emphasize success stories and scale achievements, while academics and civil society highlight implementation challenges and unintended consequences.

Consensus level

Medium consensus on principles but low consensus on outcomes. This suggests that while stakeholders agree on what DPI should achieve in theory, there are fundamental disagreements about whether current implementations are delivering on these promises. The implications are that DPI development needs more robust evaluation frameworks and stronger accountability mechanisms to bridge the gap between aspirational principles and practical outcomes.

Different viewpoints

Ownership structure and accountability of DPI systems

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Smriti Parsheera

Arguments

Brazil’s PIX is truly public because it’s delivered by government (Central Bank), ensuring freedom of information access, unlike India’s foundation-based model that can avoid transparency requirements – Public vs. Quasi-Public Debate

Strong state-market alliance exists in DPI implementation, but risks creating ‘alt big tech’ that pursues scale recklessly while being blind to due process – State-Market Alliance Concerns

Summary

Luca Belli advocates for direct government ownership of DPI (as in Brazil’s PIX) to ensure transparency and accountability through freedom of information laws, while Smriti Parsheera warns about the risks of state-market alliances that may replicate big tech problems and pursue scale without proper due process.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Infrastructure

Assessment of financial inclusion benefits through DPI

Speakers

– Sheo Bhadra Singh
– Keith Breckenridge

Arguments

India’s DPI journey started with Aadhaar in 2009-2010 to provide public services access to large excluded populations, leading to 1.33 billion digital identities and 550 million zero-balance bank accounts – Indian Scale Achievement

Financial inclusion through DPI risks encouraging usurious lending at 1% daily interest and pushing people into blacklisting systems, with South Africa seeing one trillion Rand spent on online gambling (one-third of GDP) – Financial Inclusion Risks

Summary

Singh presents India’s massive scale of financial inclusion as a success story with hundreds of millions gaining bank accounts, while Breckenridge warns that financial inclusion through DPI can lead to exploitation through predatory lending and gambling addiction, citing South Africa’s experience.

Topics

Development | Inclusive finance | Consumer protection

Role of big tech in DPI ecosystems

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Bidisha Chaudhury

Arguments

DPI represents ‘good digital sovereignty’ that fosters competition, domestic innovation, and people empowerment, contrasting with authoritarian or protectionist approaches – Positive Sovereignty Framework

Even with state-owned DPI like UPI, big tech influence remains embedded as major traffic controllers, with vendors often identifying the system with Google Pay rather than public infrastructure – Big Tech Persistence Challenge

Summary

Belli sees DPI as an effective counter to big tech dominance that can foster competition and innovation, while Chaudhury argues that big tech influence persists even in state-owned DPI systems, with users often not recognizing the public nature of the infrastructure.

Topics

Digital business models | Infrastructure | Development

Effectiveness of digitalization for inclusion

Speakers

– Sheo Bhadra Singh
– Bidisha Chaudhury

Arguments

DPI must be user-centric and citizen-centric with the goal of serving society as the basic principle from which everything else can be built – User-Centric Design Principle

Question whether digitalization equals inclusion, challenging the assumption that digital access automatically leads to meaningful social and economic inclusion – Digitalization vs. Inclusion Debate

Summary

Singh advocates for user-centric DPI design as the foundation for serving society, while Chaudhury fundamentally questions whether digital access automatically translates to meaningful inclusion, challenging the basic assumption underlying DPI initiatives.

Topics

Development | Digital access | Human rights principles

Unexpected differences

Trust as a foundational element versus systemic risks

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Keith Breckenridge

Arguments

Trust is the most important but uncodifiable element for DPI success – people can be forced to use systems but won’t maximize benefits without trust – Trust as Foundation

DPI systems face backend hacking risks where criminals steal encryption codes to access online accounts, plus pig butchering scams, particularly targeting vulnerable elderly populations – Security Vulnerabilities

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers represent countries with extensive DPI experience, yet they have fundamentally different perspectives on the primary challenge. Lumi emphasizes building trust as the key success factor, while Breckenridge focuses on protecting users from systemic vulnerabilities and exploitation.

Topics

Development | Human rights principles | Cybersecurity

Scale and speed of implementation priorities

Speakers

– Sheo Bhadra Singh
– Smriti Parsheera

Arguments

India’s UPI processed 18.77 billion transactions worth $290 billion in one month of 2025, demonstrating massive adoption enabled by existing digital identity and banking infrastructure – Transaction Volume Success

Strong state-market alliance exists in DPI implementation, but risks creating ‘alt big tech’ that pursues scale recklessly while being blind to due process – State-Market Alliance Concerns

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected as both speakers are from India and discussing the same DPI systems, yet Singh celebrates the massive scale achievement while Parsheera warns about the risks of pursuing scale recklessly without proper due process.

Topics

Development | Digital business models | Human rights principles

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion reveals significant disagreements on fundamental aspects of DPI implementation: ownership models (public vs. quasi-public), effectiveness of financial inclusion, persistence of big tech influence, and whether digitalization equals inclusion. There are also tensions between celebrating scale achievements versus warning about systemic risks.

Disagreement level

Moderate to high level of disagreement with significant implications for DPI policy. The disagreements suggest that there is no consensus on best practices for DPI implementation, governance models, or even basic assumptions about benefits versus risks. This lack of consensus could hinder the development of universal DPI principles and standards, as different stakeholders have fundamentally different perspectives on what constitutes success and what risks should be prioritized.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

These speakers share critical perspectives on DPI implementation, highlighting risks of creating new forms of exclusion, exploitation, and corporate dominance despite public ownership claims.

Speakers

– Keith Breckenridge
– Smriti Parsheera
– Bidisha Chaudhury

Arguments

Financial inclusion through DPI risks encouraging usurious lending at 1% daily interest and pushing people into blacklisting systems, with South Africa seeing one trillion Rand spent on online gambling (one-third of GDP) – Financial Inclusion Risks

Strong state-market alliance exists in DPI implementation, but risks creating ‘alt big tech’ that pursues scale recklessly while being blind to due process – State-Market Alliance Concerns

Even with state-owned DPI like UPI, big tech influence remains embedded as major traffic controllers, with vendors often identifying the system with Google Pay rather than public infrastructure – Big Tech Persistence Challenge

Topics

Development | Digital business models | Consumer protection

Both speakers present DPI as successful tools for financial inclusion and breaking private monopolies, emphasizing the scale and positive impact of their respective national systems.

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Sheo Bhadra Singh

Arguments

Brazil’s PIX payment system broke Visa/MasterCard duopoly, reduced transaction costs from 3-5% to zero, and distributed data collection while maintaining public accountability through freedom of information laws – Brazilian Success Model

India’s UPI processed 18.77 billion transactions worth $290 billion in one month of 2025, demonstrating massive adoption enabled by existing digital identity and banking infrastructure – Transaction Volume Success

Topics

Development | Digital business models | Infrastructure

Both speakers emphasize the importance of genuine public ownership and citizen control over DPI systems, with strong accountability mechanisms and transparency requirements.

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Luca Belli

Arguments

Estonia’s model ensures every citizen owns and controls their data, with ability to verify which officials accessed their information, providing preventive accountability – Citizen Data Ownership

Brazil’s PIX is truly public because it’s delivered by government (Central Bank), ensuring freedom of information access, unlike India’s foundation-based model that can avoid transparency requirements – Public vs. Quasi-Public Debate

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

DPI is not a monolithic technology but varies significantly across countries based on national contexts, with successful implementations requiring strong institutional capacity, systemic vision, and public trust

There are fundamental tensions between DPI as national infrastructure and the need for global interoperability and common principles

Ownership models matter critically – truly public systems (like Brazil’s PIX) offer better accountability through transparency laws compared to quasi-public foundations that can avoid information disclosure requirements

DPI can successfully break monopolies and reduce costs (Brazil’s PIX eliminated 3-5% transaction fees from Visa/MasterCard duopoly) while distributing data collection and fostering local innovation

Financial inclusion through DPI carries significant risks including usurious lending, vulnerability to fraud, and potential harm to elderly populations who lack digital skills

Big tech influence persists even in state-owned DPI systems, with users often identifying public infrastructure with private platforms (e.g., UPI being seen as Google Pay)

Civil society participation in DPI development has been limited, following top-down approaches without robust transparency and accountability mechanisms

Technical success requires addressing systemic factors like connectivity costs and net neutrality – India’s zero rating prohibition was crucial for DPI adoption

Trust is the most important but uncodifiable element for DPI success, and digitalization does not automatically equal meaningful inclusion

Resolutions and action items

Freedom Online Coalition under Estonia’s chairship is developing rights-respecting DPI principles including human-centered solutions, inclusivity, transparency, privacy, security, and interoperability

India has offered to provide its DPI platforms free of cost to any country wanting to adopt them, as announced during G20 presidency

Dominican Republic is implementing specific technical governance standards focusing on data quality, observability, and orchestration mechanisms to make data protection principles enforceable

Need to establish liability frameworks where financial institutions bear responsibility for fraud losses, following Britain’s model of £85,000 bank liability

Unresolved issues

How to effectively weave human rights principles into existing legacy DPI systems versus newer implementations

Whether digitalization truly equals inclusion or if it creates new forms of exclusion

How to balance the state-market alliance in DPI without creating ‘alt big tech’ that pursues reckless scaling

How to address the vulnerability of elderly and digitally unskilled populations to fraud and exploitation in DPI systems

How to ensure meaningful civil society participation beyond token consultation in DPI governance

How to define and measure financial inclusion beyond basic payments and remittances to include broader financial services

How to create effective trusted fiduciary systems that can help citizens navigate DPI complexities and resolve issues

How to make metrics of exclusion visible and ensure accountability for system failures and disabled accounts

Suggested compromises

Implementing virtual ID as default instead of main ID to balance privacy with functionality, learning from India’s Aadhaar experience

Creating hybrid governance models that combine public ownership with multi-stakeholder oversight including civil society and private sector participation

Developing modular DPI architectures that allow different institutions to manage their own systems while maintaining interoperability through common platforms

Establishing shared liability models between network providers, financial institutions, and government agencies for fraud prevention and victim compensation

Building DPI with both external privacy (from outside users) and internal privacy (with checks on government access) to address different stakeholder concerns

Allowing space for different civil society values – both market-based empowerment and human rights approaches – in DPI platform governance

So what is interesting here is not only that the customer welfare is increased, but also that competition is automatically enhanced, innovation is produced, and data governance is distributed. And the local entrepreneurs that innovate thanks to this, then they have to pay taxes in Brazil. So we have a very different dynamic here of empowerment through DPIs.

Speaker

Luca Belli

Reason

This comment reframes DPI from a purely technical solution to a comprehensive economic sovereignty tool. Belli demonstrates how Brazil’s PIX system simultaneously broke foreign duopolies (Visa/MasterCard), reduced costs for consumers, distributed data collection power, and kept innovation benefits within the national economy through taxation.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from abstract principles to concrete economic impacts, establishing a framework for evaluating DPI success beyond just service delivery. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider sovereignty and economic empowerment aspects of their own DPI implementations.

One trillion Rand was spent on online gambling systems in 2023. That’s a third of GDP one third of GDP spent on gambling… We’re building an infrastructure that’s going to make a huge population newly vulnerable to really serious crimes. And there’s no discussion of what we should be doing about that.

Speaker

Keith Breckenridge

Reason

This comment provides a stark counternarrative to DPI success stories by revealing unintended consequences. Breckenridge exposes how financial inclusion through DPI can enable harmful behaviors like gambling addiction and financial crimes, challenging the assumption that digital access automatically equals empowerment.

Impact

This fundamentally shifted the tone from celebratory to cautionary, forcing other panelists to acknowledge risks. It introduced the critical concept of ‘metrics of exclusion’ and liability questions that weren’t being addressed in DPI design, adding necessary complexity to the discussion.

So in the process of being a pushback against big tech, could we be creating another ecosystem which is pursuing scale in the same reckless manner, which is, you know, really blind to due process, really blind to other things in the pursuit of reaching scale fast? So I think those are things to be conscious about in the DPI story.

Speaker

Smriti Parsheera

Reason

This insight introduces the concept of ‘alt big tech’ – the idea that DPI, while intended as an alternative to Silicon Valley dominance, might replicate the same problematic approaches to scaling technology without adequate safeguards. It’s a meta-critique of the DPI movement itself.

Impact

This comment prompted deeper reflection on DPI governance models and participation. It challenged the panel to consider whether state-led DPI initiatives were truly different from private tech monopolies, leading to more nuanced discussions about ownership, accountability, and the role of civil society.

So they don’t even think of it as an UPI which is owned by the state, or maybe not owned by, maintained and sustained by the state. So I think that is where it is, it becomes very critical to understand, or even explore that how do we actually circumvent the influence of the big tech when we rely on an infrastructure where the big tech interests are so much more embedded already.

Speaker

Bidisha Chaudhury

Reason

This observation reveals a critical gap between DPI policy intentions and ground reality. Despite UPI being state-owned infrastructure, users primarily interact with it through Google Pay and PhonePay, effectively making big tech the face of public infrastructure.

Impact

This comment exposed the complexity of true digital sovereignty, showing how public infrastructure can still be captured by private interests at the user interface level. It added nuance to discussions about ownership and control, influencing later conversations about the need for stronger governance frameworks.

The fundamental issue really has to be making what we call metrics of exclusion much more visible… This is the number of people whose identity numbers are at the moment disabled. And this is how long it’s taken for us to basically answer queries around those numbers.

Speaker

Keith Breckenridge

Reason

This comment introduces a crucial accountability mechanism that’s missing from most DPI discussions. Instead of just measuring inclusion success, Breckenridge argues for transparency about who gets excluded and why, using South Africa’s example of 2 million disabled identity numbers.

Impact

This shifted the conversation toward concrete governance mechanisms and transparency requirements. It influenced the discussion about the need for oversight, fiduciaries, and accountability measures, moving beyond theoretical principles to practical implementation requirements.

is digitalization equal to inclusion? Is the question that I think I would end with.

Speaker

Bidisha Chaudhury

Reason

This closing question encapsulates a fundamental tension running throughout the discussion. It challenges the core assumption underlying much DPI advocacy – that providing digital access automatically translates to meaningful inclusion and empowerment.

Impact

Though brief, this question crystallized the skeptical undercurrent that had been building throughout the discussion, serving as a powerful summary of the concerns raised about conflating technical solutions with social outcomes.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a promotional discussion about DPI success stories into a nuanced examination of digital governance challenges. The interplay between optimistic government perspectives (Singh, Manzueta) and critical academic analysis (Breckenridge, Parsheera, Chaudhury) created a productive tension that elevated the conversation. Luca Belli’s economic sovereignty framework provided a middle ground, showing how DPI can deliver benefits while acknowledging implementation complexities. The discussion evolved from celebrating technical achievements to grappling with fundamental questions about power, accountability, and the relationship between digitalization and genuine inclusion. The critical voices didn’t dismiss DPI but demanded more sophisticated approaches to governance, transparency, and protection of vulnerable populations – ultimately strengthening the case for more thoughtful DPI development.

How do we truly make DPI a public interest technology and a public facing technology, and how should policymakers, civil society and other stakeholders be thinking about ownership within the DPI architecture?

Speaker

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Explanation

This question addresses the fundamental challenge of ensuring DPI serves public interests rather than creating new monopolies, and clarifying ownership structures across the modular DPI ecosystem.

To what extent can we create an alternative infrastructure that is truly independent of big tech when big tech interests are already so embedded in the digital ecosystem?

Speaker

Bidisha Chaudhury

Explanation

This explores whether DPI can actually achieve digital sovereignty or if it remains dependent on existing big tech infrastructure, as evidenced by Google Pay’s dominance in India’s UPI system.

Is digitalization equal to inclusion?

Speaker

Bidisha Chaudhury

Explanation

This fundamental question challenges the assumption that digital access automatically leads to meaningful inclusion and empowerment.

How do we define financial inclusion – is it only about payments and remittances, or should it encompass a broader bouquet of financial services including insurance?

Speaker

Smriti Parsheera

Explanation

This questions whether current DPI approaches to financial inclusion are too narrow and whether they should address broader financial service needs.

What sort of ID do you actually need for financial inclusion – do you necessarily need a biometric-based ID?

Speaker

Smriti Parsheera

Explanation

This challenges assumptions about the necessity of biometric identification systems for achieving financial inclusion goals.

Who should take liability when people are defrauded through DPI systems – network providers, banks, or government?

Speaker

Keith Breckenridge

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap in accountability when vulnerable populations are targeted by criminals exploiting DPI infrastructure.

How can we make metrics of exclusion more visible in DPI systems, including publishing data on disabled identity numbers and response times for queries?

Speaker

Keith Breckenridge

Explanation

This calls for transparency about who is being excluded from DPI systems and how quickly exclusion issues are resolved.

How do we create space for trusted fiduciaries who can help people navigate DPI systems when errors occur?

Speaker

Keith Breckenridge

Explanation

This addresses the need for intermediaries to help vulnerable populations when they encounter problems with DPI systems.

How do we weave human rights principles and AI ethical standards into existing DPI architectures, both legacy and newer systems?

Speaker

Online participant and Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Explanation

This explores the practical challenge of retrofitting ethical frameworks into operational DPI systems, especially as they expand into AI applications.

What are the opportunities for mobile network operators to collaborate with government in DPI implementation?

Speaker

Elizabeth (audience member)

Explanation

This seeks to understand the role of telecommunications infrastructure providers in the DPI ecosystem and potential partnership models.

How do we guard against digital financial inclusion becoming a risk rather than a solution, particularly regarding data harvesting and abuse?

Speaker

Elizabeth (audience member)

Explanation

This addresses concerns about unintended negative consequences of DPI implementation, particularly for vulnerable populations.

How do we address the problem of online gambling consuming significant portions of GDP through DPI payment systems?

Speaker

Keith Breckenridge

Explanation

This highlights an unexpected consequence of financial inclusion through DPI that requires policy attention and research.

Summary

This discussion, hosted by the APNIC Foundation at the Internet Governance Forum 2025 in Oslo, focused on addressing digital funding gaps in the developing world. The panel brought together representatives from various organizations including the Tech Global Institute, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ICANN, GIZ, and the APNIC Foundation to examine challenges in internet and digital development funding.

The panelists highlighted that despite 20 years of progress since the World Summit on the Information Society, significant disparities persist, with 32% of the world’s population remaining unconnected and stark differences between global north (93% connectivity) and global south (27% connectivity) regions. A concerning trend has emerged where official development assistance, philanthropic giving, and corporate funding are declining simultaneously, creating unprecedented funding gaps for digital development initiatives.

Key challenges identified include the creation of new digital divides, forced internet shutdowns affecting marginalized populations, and the tension between digital transformation goals and human rights protection. The discussion emphasized that meaningful digital transformation requires more than just infrastructure deployment—it needs local capacity building, community ownership, and alignment with national development priorities rather than externally imposed solutions.

Panelists stressed the importance of shifting from traditional donor-recipient models toward collaborative partnerships that respect local sovereignty and decision-making. They advocated for outcome-focused rather than output-focused approaches, transparency in funding mechanisms, and the mainstreaming of digital solutions across all development sectors including health, education, and climate resilience.

The conversation concluded with calls for greater coordination among stakeholders to avoid duplication of efforts and maximize impact despite shrinking resources. Participants emphasized that digital inclusion should be treated as a fundamental development issue requiring collective action and innovative funding models to ensure sustainable progress across developing regions.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Persistent Digital Divides and Funding Challenges**: The discussion highlighted that despite 20 years of progress since WSIS, 32% of the world’s population remains unconnected, with stark disparities between Global North (93% connected) and Global South (27% connected). This is compounded by declining Official Development Assistance (ODA), reduced philanthropic giving, and shrinking corporate funding for digital development.

– **Need for Structural Change and Local Ownership**: Panelists emphasized moving beyond traditional donor-recipient models toward approaches that prioritize local capacity building, government sovereignty in determining digital futures, and community-driven solutions. There was strong criticism of supply-oriented approaches that impose solutions without considering local contexts and procurement processes.

– **Collaboration Over Competition**: A recurring theme was the urgent need to reduce duplication of efforts among organizations and instead focus on meaningful collaboration. Speakers called for breaking down silos, sharing resources, and creating collective impact frameworks rather than competing for the same objectives with shrinking funding pools.

– **Digital Transformation as Cross-Sectoral Enabler**: The conversation explored how digital transformation should be mainstreamed across all development sectors (health, education, climate, etc.) rather than treated as a separate infrastructure challenge. This includes ensuring that digital solutions contribute to broader socio-economic outcomes and sustainable development goals.

– **Balancing Digital Development with Human Rights**: Panelists discussed the tension between rapid digital transformation and human rights protection, emphasizing that meaningful access must include not just connectivity but also digital literacy, affordability, cybersecurity, and the ability for communities to shape their own digital futures while maintaining fundamental rights.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to address critical funding gaps in digital development across the Global South and developing regions, bringing together diverse stakeholders to explore innovative funding models, partnership approaches, and collaborative frameworks that could ensure sustainable progress in internet and digital development despite declining traditional funding sources.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional yet candid tone throughout, with speakers demonstrating both concern about current challenges and cautious optimism about potential solutions. The tone was collaborative and solution-oriented, with panelists building on each other’s points rather than debating. There was an underlying sense of urgency about the widening digital divides, but this was balanced by constructive dialogue about practical approaches. The conversation became increasingly inspiring toward the end, with speakers drawing parallels to successful global health initiatives and emphasizing the potential for collective action to overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Neeti Biyani** – Works with the APNIC Foundation, Session moderator/host

– **Sabhanaz Rashid Diya** – Executive Director at Tech Global Institute, working at the intersection of government, businesses and civil society

– **Remy Friedmann** – Senior Advisor Human Security and Business at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

– **Maarten Botterman** – Director on the Board of Directors at ICANN (participating online)

– **Franz von Weizsaecker** – Responsible for Economic Development and Digital Transformation at GIZ

– **Raj Singh** – CEO of the APNIC Foundation

– **Audience** – Various audience members who asked questions and provided comments

– **Online moderator** – Colleague named Omar, serving as online moderator

**Additional speakers:**

– **Molly** – Works with the Digital Health and Rights Project, released research report on ODA donors in Europe

# Addressing Digital Funding Gaps in the Developing World: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This discussion, hosted by the APNIC Foundation at the Internet Governance Forum 2024, brought together experts to examine critical challenges surrounding digital funding gaps in developing regions. The session, moderated by Neeti Biyani from the APNIC Foundation, featured representatives from the Tech Global Institute, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ICANN, GIZ, and the APNIC Foundation.

The discussion revealed persistent digital divides despite decades of progress. With 32% of the world’s population remaining unconnected and stark disparities between the Global North (93% connectivity) and Global South (27% connectivity), the challenge has been compounded by declining official development assistance and reduced corporate funding for digital development initiatives.

Key themes included the need to shift from traditional donor-recipient models toward collaborative partnerships, the importance of mainstreaming digital solutions across all development sectors, and the tension between rapid digital transformation and human rights protection. Speakers emphasized moving from capacity building to capability building and focusing on sustainable outcomes rather than project outputs.

## Key Participants and Their Main Contributions

### Neeti Biyani – APNIC Foundation (Session Moderator)

Biyani framed the discussion around the need for digital transformation that serves whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches. She emphasized that meaningful digital transformation must lead to better lives and socio-economic outcomes, questioning the balance between government interventions and market-driven solutions.

### Sabhanaz Rashid Diya – Tech Global Institute

Diya provided critical statistics showing that 32% of the world’s population remains unconnected, with 93% connectivity in the Global North versus 27% in the Global South. She highlighted concerning trends including “296 shutdowns in 54 countries” and identified an “unhealthy tension between digital development and human rights.” Diya criticized the “culture of imposition” where Global North actors decide what gets implemented in Global South countries, describing this as a “norm shapers versus norm takers dynamic.”

### Remy Friedmann – Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

Friedmann emphasized Switzerland’s approach to partnership, inclusiveness, and community-driven solutions. He stressed that governments have a responsibility to protect human rights while setting digital standards and safeguards. He advocated for mainstreaming digital exclusion within climate, gender, education, and health agendas rather than treating it as a separate issue, calling for collective impact frameworks that center local actors.

### Maarten Botterman – ICANN (Online Participant)

Botterman represented ICANN’s “one world, one internet” vision through capacity building and regional outreach programs. He highlighted ICANN’s Coalition for Digital Africa and engagement with 41 African governments. He emphasized that local capacity building and understanding are crucial for successful digital inclusion initiatives, with communities needing to determine their own digital transformation priorities.

### Franz von Weizsaecker – GIZ

Von Weizsaecker noted that German development funding faces a 10% decline while some philanthropic funding attempts to compensate. He advocated for mainstreaming digital transformation across all sectors as an enabler for sustainable development goals. He warned about potential waste of global public goods like low earth orbit satellite infrastructure due to corporate monopolization and called for open ecosystem approaches.

### Raj Singh – APNIC Foundation

Singh highlighted that despite decades of work, “we seem to be creating new digital divides constantly” and questioned whether the development community is solving problems or perpetuating them. He advocated for a fundamental shift from “capacity building to capability building,” explaining that “when you have capabilities, then you can do things.” Singh noted the APNIC Foundation’s 16-year-old innovation fund and criticized significant duplication of efforts among organizations despite shrinking funding resources.

## Major Discussion Topics

### Persistent Digital Divides and Funding Challenges

The discussion opened with stark statistics highlighting ongoing connectivity gaps. Diya’s presentation showed that despite 20 years of progress since the World Summit on the Information Society, significant portions of the global population remain unconnected, with particularly acute challenges in the Global South.

Singh added regional context, noting that the Asia Pacific region presents unique challenges with the most advanced and least developed economies coexisting. He specifically highlighted that “half of the South Asia sub-region remains unconnected” and observed that “there’s a lot of submarine cables being deployed all across the world. The problem is, it’s the cables that are being deployed. There’s no supporting ecosystem that’s being set up at the same time.”

Multiple speakers acknowledged declining resources across traditional funding streams. Von Weizsaecker reported the 10% decline in German development funding budgets, while Singh noted that private sector funding is shrinking due to margin pressure and reduced corporate social responsibility investments.

### Power Dynamics and Local Ownership

A significant portion of the discussion focused on power imbalances in digital development. Diya’s analysis of the “culture of imposition” highlighted how Global North actors often determine solutions for Global South contexts. She suggested that when communities gain the ability to define conditions for accepting or rejecting interventions, “we see a little bit more of that negotiation, a little bit more of that empowerment and that ownership happening.”

Singh supported this perspective by distinguishing between capacity and capabilities: “It’s no longer for us… it’s not about building capacity anymore, it’s about building capabilities. Because when you have capabilities, then you can do things.” This represents a shift from training-focused approaches toward enabling actual implementation and sustainable outcomes.

### Digital Transformation as Cross-Sectoral Enabler

Speakers emphasized viewing digital transformation not as standalone infrastructure but as an enabler across all development sectors. Von Weizsaecker stated that “digital transformation should be mainstreamed across all sectors as an enabler for sustainable development goals.”

Friedmann reinforced this view, emphasizing that “digital exclusion should be mainstreamed within climate, gender, education, and health agendas.” This mainstreaming approach suggests that digital solutions should contribute to broader socio-economic outcomes rather than being pursued independently.

### Human Rights and Development Tensions

The discussion addressed tensions between rapid digital transformation and human rights protection. Diya identified this as an “unhealthy tension,” noting that digital transformation often comes with “disconnection trends through forced shutdowns and network throttling” that particularly affect marginalized populations.

Friedmann offered a governmental perspective, emphasizing that “governments have responsibility to protect human rights whilst setting digital standards and safeguards,” suggesting that human rights considerations should be integrated into digital development from the outset.

## Key Challenges Identified

### Coordination and Duplication

Singh highlighted the problem of “multiple organizations doing similar work with little actual collaboration despite funding constraints.” He questioned whether progress had been made on collaboration, asking “In six months, have we gone any step forward or not in terms of collaboration and avoiding duplication?”

### Infrastructure Without Ecosystems

The discussion revealed concerns about infrastructure deployment without supporting systems. Singh noted that submarine cables are being deployed without supporting ecosystems, while Von Weizsaecker warned about potential waste of satellite infrastructure due to corporate monopolization.

### Declining Traditional Funding

Multiple speakers acknowledged the convergence of declining official development assistance, reduced philanthropic giving, and shrinking corporate funding, creating unprecedented challenges for digital development initiatives.

### Transparency and Accountability

An audience member from the Digital Health and Rights Project asked: “How can we work together as funders and other stakeholders, with transparency in investment amounts, where they’re being invested and who we’re working with?” This highlighted the need for better tracking and coordination mechanisms.

## Proposed Solutions and Next Steps

### Outcome-Focused Approaches

The APNIC Foundation committed to shifting focus from outputs to outcomes in their grant-making and project evaluation. Singh offered to share expertise on outcome-focused metrics with other organizations, including ICANN.

### Collaborative Frameworks

Friedmann proposed collective impact frameworks that center local actors while bringing together funders, implementers, and communities into strategic alignment. This approach could help reduce duplication while respecting different organizational mandates.

### Mainstreaming Digital Solutions

Multiple speakers advocated for integrating digital solutions across all development sectors rather than treating them as separate initiatives. This requires coordination across health, education, climate, and gender programs.

### Open Ecosystem Approaches

Von Weizsaecker proposed open ecosystem approaches to infrastructure development, particularly for satellite networks, to ensure that global investments automatically benefit underserved regions.

## Audience Participation and Questions

The session included active audience participation, with questions about transparency in digital health investments and challenges faced by private companies trying to offer solutions in developing regions. A representative from a Norwegian company highlighted difficulties private companies face due to skepticism and lack of trust, making it difficult to offer even low-cost solutions to developing regions.

These questions underscored ongoing challenges in creating effective mechanisms for private sector engagement in development contexts while maintaining focus on sustainable, locally-owned solutions.

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed that addressing digital funding gaps requires more than mobilizing additional resources—it demands fundamental changes in how digital development is conceptualized and implemented. Key themes included shifting from donor-recipient to partnership models, from capacity building to capability building, and from outputs to outcomes.

While speakers identified significant challenges including declining funding, persistent coordination problems, and ongoing power imbalances, they also outlined concrete steps forward. These include the APNIC Foundation’s commitment to outcome-focused approaches, proposals for collective impact frameworks, and emphasis on mainstreaming digital solutions across all development sectors.

The conversation concluded with recognition that success will depend not just on what is done, but how it is done—with genuine partnership, respect for local priorities, and focus on sustainable outcomes that serve the communities digital development aims to support. As Singh observed, the challenge is ensuring that decades of development work actually solve problems rather than perpetuate them, requiring honest assessment and willingness to make fundamental changes in approach.

Neeti Biyani: Hello, a very good afternoon to everyone who’s joining us in person in Oslo and good morning or good evening if you’re joining us online. I am Neeti Biyani. I work with the APNIC Foundation and I am going to be hosting this session today, which is titled Addressing Digital Funding Gaps in the Developing World. Considering we do have the scope for a roundtable set up here, I’d request if anyone wants to join us on stage so that we can have a more candid, informal conversation, I’d like you to be as big a part of it as we are. So if anyone wants to please come on stage and join us here, please feel free. All right. Let me just start out by introducing the APNIC Foundation, a little bit about what we do. We are an internet and digital development organisation. We serve across 56 economies in the Asia-Pacific region. We invest in and channel resources towards building technical and human capabilities. We help drive digital innovation and we enable digital transformation across the region, working with a host of different stakeholders and partners. I am privileged to be hosting this conversation on addressing gaps in funding for digital development at the IGF 2025 in Oslo today, this afternoon. As we all know, we’ve seen quite a rapid decline in official development assistance, ODA, philanthropy giving, corporate giving, all of which have together exacerbated gaps in funding available for internet and digital development or ICT for development in the global majority especially. In this context, I hope that you know, as various stakeholders present in the room today, we can discuss, have a rethink of funding models, partnerships and collective impact to ensure that we are impacting sustainable progress and outcomes across the various regions in the developing world. I am joined today by a remarkable panel. I’ll maybe start from my absolute left. I have Sabhanaz Rashid Diya. She is Executive Director at Tech Global Institute, working at the intersection of government, businesses as well as civil society. To my left is Remy Friedmann, who is Senior Advisor Human Security and Business at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. I am joined online by Maarten Botterman, who is a Director on the Board of Directors at ICANN. On my right, I am joined by Franz von Weizsaecker. Did I completely murder your last name? Who is responsible for Economic Development and Digital Transformation at GIZ. And to my absolute right is Raj Singh, CEO of the EPNIC Foundation. And I am Neeti, your moderator today. So, I maybe want to start out by asking Diya, how do you understand digital development efforts across the global majority, across the developing regions so far, maybe, you know, in the last couple of decades, you know, how do we, how do we, you know, for the establishing of a common understanding of digital development, of internet development, how do we understand that collectively?

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Neeti. And hi, everybody. Very privileged and excited to be on this panel. I think just diving right into it, you know, in the last, I would say, if you take the last 20 years, perhaps, starting with the original commitments of the WSIS process and how there was a real sort of global understanding around bringing the unconnected online, you know, supporting digital transformation, particularly an important, and addressing some of the issues in digital divides, gender, you know, sort of creating more equitable world that is digitally transformative. We’ve seen a tremendous amount of progress. We’ve seen sort of, you know, more countries coming online, communities coming online. There has been a huge push to create jobs, create sort of development outcomes, you know, tackle some of the most pressing, pressing issues in society using technology. But at the same time, I think, you know, we are still, you know, 20 years later, we’re still at a point where 32% of the world’s population still remains unconnected. And, you know, that continues to be a challenge. And it’s, and the global north-south disparity is, is quite, still quite prevalent. In the global north, we have 93% who are people who are online. In the global south, we only have 27% of the people who are online. So that disparity is very much present. And we know, you know, from our work and communities that the people who are most disproportionately affected are women, girls, marginalized populations, you know, minority groups, et cetera, who, who just are not able to come online, whether that’s for device affordability, whether that’s because of, you know, lack of the actual infrastructure, being able to reach certain parts of the world. And so we have a number of challenges, which is beyond just the infrastructure, but also many structural challenges. And so I think there’s still a lot of need for that push to happen. But also in the last 10 years, I would say, there’s also been trends of not just people not having the resources to come online, but also when people are online, a tendency to also disconnect them. So we talk a lot about the unconnected population, but there is also a tendency of disconnecting populations through forced shutdowns or network throttling. And that’s also a huge concern. And so just based on Access Now’s report, last year alone, there was 296 shutdowns in 54 countries. So that’s an extraordinary number. So even when there is this push in the broader development agenda to get more people online, there’s also this counter, I would say, sort of trend where people are getting disconnected. And in that sort of a situation, I think there’s we’re at a pivotal moment where more and more people, especially the global south, they feel the need to kind of catch up with the global technology race. They’re seeing huge amounts of some countries moving very fast, some countries slowing down. And so I think at this point, and especially in line with the discussion we’re going to have today, the funding reductions we see around the world, the older systems falling is a really concerning trend, because in many ways, that’s going to really set back years of progress that has been made. And now more than ever, we need that to happen, because that disparity between the global north and south is, you know, whatever progress we’ve made, that’s probably going to widen a lot more. And it’s going to put an entire part of the world, perhaps the majority part of the world, in a position where they’re completely left out of any kind of technological progress and any kind of opportunities to see the benefits of digital in their countries. And so I think this broad connection between resource availability, you know, the country’s aspirations for development and broader economic progress is very much at risk today, and happy to speak more about it to them.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks Diya. I think just bouncing off of what we’ve heard so far, let me turn to Raj. Raj, if you can speak on behalf of the APAC region, which is one of the largest developing regions in the world with the bulk of the unconnected, underserved, remote, dispersed populations. How do you understand, you know, Diya’s reference to the changes that we’ve seen in the funding landscape quite recently?

Raj Singh: So you’re quite right to say that the Asia Pacific is very diverse. It’s the world’s largest region. And just before this session, I was speaking in the parliamentary session and what I said there was, and I’ll just repeat that here, the fact that the Asia Pacific as an example, you know, we’ve got some of the most advanced economies in the world and we’ve got some of the most least developed economies in the world. And that in itself becomes a challenge. Now, overlaid on top of that is that, you know, you see parts of the world leaping ahead in various types of new technologies, be it, you know, the government itself either invest in it or they’ve got very mature industries or the private sector who are taking the lead in moving forward. Then you have all these other economies that are nowhere near that level of development. And then, you know, for example, you go to an event like the IGF or to various other multilateral meetings and other conferences around the world and you hear all these stories, people say, no, we’re doing this, we’re doing that. AEA does this, you know, IOT or whatever the next iteration is going to be, it’s going to change everything and this is what you need to do. So suddenly you have here an economy which probably doesn’t even have a fully-fledged policymaking unit. in their regulatory section that can actually develop policies and shape what things should look like because most of the time they’re working off a reactive basis right something happens they need to react to that so it’s what I call reactive policy making not proactive policy making so that just to sort of lay the foundation there of why I think this is a problem right then you have the different levels of development that exists and again Asia Pacific is pretty much a poster child South Asia which is one of the four sub-regions in the Asia Pacific half of that sub-region is still unconnected okay which is a very stark statistic right now there are various challenges on why that is the case but the fact still remains half that sub-region is unconnected and and if someone’s heard me speak before they you would know that I always bring up one thing is and that’s that we seem to be creating new digital digital divides constantly we’re not stopping and I’ve been in this sector this industry for pretty much all my career so going on close to 30 years now we were talking about stuff 30-20 years ago in a slightly different guise it was ICT4D we’re still talking about the same issues some of those issues have not been solved I mean last year we did a couple of panels at the AGF and we brought up these issues again given it’s only been six odd months since the last IGF but the fact is you know nothing has changed all that much now on top of all that what we’ve seen in in the front end of this year there’s been changes made globally in how things have been funded ODA for example overseas development assistance so so that’s one the part of money is shrunk but if you look at the private sector even their own parts of money are shrinking because there’s margin pressure right there was a time when a lot of the private sector would go and fund things out of CSR or other reasons what we are seeing right now that’s shrinking very very rapidly And then governments themselves, they have their own priorities. I mean, you know, do they invest in primary health care, or do they invest in a funky new internet infrastructure, right? So that’s sometimes a hard decision to make. So I’m just going to let that hang there, because, you know, what I’m keen to see is, and Franz was with me on the panel last year, we had some interesting discussions on where we should get to, and which means, you know, don’t duplicate stuff, work together, collaborate, complement. But I’m keen to understand, in six months, have we gone any step forward or not? I don’t know.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Raj. We’ll definitely come to that in the course of this conversation. I think at this point, let me turn to Maarten. Maarten, you’re online. Hopefully, you can hear me, even though I can’t see you at the moment. But, you know, you’re here representing ICANN. I see you. Hi, Maarten. You’re here representing ICANN, wearing a few more hats, I’m very sure. ICANN’s had a particularly focused approach to supporting initiatives and developments across the world, which is that you want to further your vision of a single, open, globally interoperable internet. I just want to ask you, bouncing off of what we’ve heard from Raj, and, you know, the particular challenges that, you know, either being unconnected or, you know, not having meaningful connectivity or meaningful access. How do you interpret those in terms of ICANN’s mission, the role that ICANN plays, as well as how you envision ICANN’s impact across the landscape, across the sector?

Maarten Botterman: Thanks, Neeti, for the question. It’s indeed, as you say, it’s one world, one internet. And ICANN is there to serve the world. Raj is representing the APEC region. As we know today, most of the internet users live in the APEC region, whereas 25 years ago, most of them lived in North America. So you see a shift in the world. This also means that there’s a shift in the world in terms of experience, where the markets are. And we’re very much aware that we are there to support the world. And that means that in countries where advancement of internet is less, there’s more to win. And we actually actively reach out to support that. An example is the continent of Africa. The continent of Africa is where, percentage-wise, there’s most growth happening over the years to come in terms of people also getting connected. That is where we see many of the next billion, as well as in other parts of the world, including APEC. But in Africa, we are, for instance, actively engaged in a capacity-building initiative, which is called the Coalition for Digital Africa, which is really to support all kinds of transformative projects that aim at enhancing Africa’s internet infrastructure, cybersecurity, digital inclusivity, and the governance. So initiatives we have there is engaging with about 41 African governments, countries, but also with, for instance, the African University Collaboration Group. And things we’ve been doing there is, on one hand, together with internet society, for instance, setting up new connection points for the internet, installing new root server instances from the ICANN managed route that Elroot referred to. That results now, most of the traffic within the region and to expand also the top-level domain performance monitoring in Africa. All this to help Africa to also step up and grab the opportunities. Next to that, we’re also supporting, for instance, as you know, ICANN is a multi-stakeholder organisation in which different groups have their place. And also for governments, we do capacity development. We help them to get on board of the GECC, become aware of law-making practices and with people from over 19 countries on the technical functioning of the internet. Now, next to that, of course, this is just a regional example and we have regional outreach throughout the world because we are very much aware that we are there to serve the world. Now, with that, a very clear example of that would be the next round of top-level domains where there will be an opening for new initiatives to have a top-level domain that serves specifically also regions around the world. For instance, in their own character sets, on languages. Languages are important, they represent culture, but also not everybody in the world is able or should be expected to communicate in English. So it’s good that we also support that richness and we actively do of languages and character sets. Also in a new round. And also being aware that particular regions that aren’t that advanced yet, extra support is necessary. We foresee that the applicant support programme that has been put in place for those who are less aware at the moment, to help them to get up to speed with appropriate applications and good business plans. So with that, we truly believe one world, one internet and ICANN is standing ready to support that effectively.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks Maarten. I think, Franz, if I can come to you. We’ve heard from Maarten that, you know, their support starts with squarely serving the mission of a single, open, interoperable internet. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel like GIZ had a slightly different approach, where you support bettering and furthering socio-economic progress and outcomes across the service regions you work in. But you’ve, since 2018, mainstreamed digital solutions as part of the projects that you do support, wherein you’re trying to make sure that every project has a digital solution, a digital infrastructure component that then can be mainstreamed or replicated or scaled. What’s your experience been like working on real, very real world issues, if I may call them that, but with, you know, squarely mainstreamed digital solutions?

Franz von Weizsaecker: Thank you so much. Maybe let me get one thing straight. It shouldn’t come across as if I was not in favor of free and open and internet for everybody. So that definitely is part of our agenda. And the general trends in development funding, you’ve been describing it initially, the official development assistance tendencies, looking at USAID and so on, are going down. At the same time, some philanthropic funding is coming with the Gates Foundation, trying to compensate some of those declines. And just today, we got the draft budget of the German government. We have about a 10 percent decline in the German development funding budget of the BMZ ministry, which is not as disruptive as in some other contexts. So indeed, what you mentioned is digital transformation is indeed a mainstreaming topic across our entire portfolio of achieving all the sustainable development goals or all the goals of the African 2063 agenda or various national development agendas. And just like, I mean, there are some mainstreaming topics that development actors are working on. We have gender mainstreaming, human rights mainstream and digital mainstreaming. And to be honest, the digital mainstreaming is possibly the most successful one of those, knowing that no line ministry, no initiative, no health initiative, education initiative, and throughout all the sectors, the Internet became a key enabler to be achieving the sustainable development goals and the factor for economic growth and for trade and for all the other goals that you have there. At the same time, some of the goals are conflicting. So if you look at the climate goals, of course, we have a huge energy consumption and corresponding carbon emissions resulting from AI, from data centers, from digital infrastructures. But then if you compare how much carbon emissions per economic activity you have in the digital sector, that is still much less than you have in more traditional industries in mining and manufacturing and all these other economic activities. So still you could say the the GDP per carbon emission is still quite good in the digital economy in comparison. And yeah, we do try to achieve these sustainable development goals in a context where, you know, our funding governments from Germany, from Europe, there are some political shifts we have to deal with. And if you look at the European Union, the major initiative is called the Global Gateway. And that is the attempt to leverage also private capital, also private capital of European investors in the achievement of development goals in infrastructure and for energy, for digital data centers, IXPs. So, that is part of what we are doing, is trying to leverage these private capital for the achievement of the development goals, knowing that we cannot entirely rely on public ODA funding all the time. So, that is maybe the big trend going forward. Of course, at the same time, any private capital depends on the regulatory and the investment environment to be ready for that. And I cannot say that this is the case in all of the countries that we work with, where any European investors might be very hesitant to come in and invest in some countries when the general investment environment doesn’t seem to be ready. So, that is part of the risk of this tendency, is that we are losing out, especially on some of the security-wise, like those countries where the security situation or the general investment environment is not good. So, that is indeed a big open question of how we best… deal with that. For the Asian region, largely, a very large part of it is very ready for private investment, also international FDI. However, not all of the places, and especially in Africa, many countries, private investors would be concerned to be putting their money in. So, it’s about de-risking from using development banks’ mechanisms, de-risking these private investments, and then, of course, using the ODA where it is needed, where there is no alternative with this, for example, global gateway investment package.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Franz. Having spoken of EU governments, we happen to have a representative on our panel. Remy, if I can turn to you, last but not the least at all. How do you see the role of the Swiss government in the debate of digital development, building the digital rights narrative, contributing to this ongoing conversation of more and more people having access, what kind of access, etc.? While there is an infrastructure and a connectivity and access question, there is also a quality of access question. So, would you want to comment on that from the Swiss government’s perspective?

Remy Friedmann: Thank you, Neeti, and thank you for inviting me to this very interesting conversation. Hello, everyone. You put me just in an awkward position. Switzerland is not an EU member, so we’ll speak for Switzerland, not for the EU. But anyway, I mean, Switzerland’s international cooperation is guided by several principles, including promoting sustainable development, alleviating poverty, fostering peace and human rights. This is embedded in our international cooperation strategy, which is currently being renewed. And we really emphasize partnership, inclusiveness. Switzerland really strives to strengthen digital capacities of its partner countries to improve the resilience of public services and civil society, but still risks like the digital divide which worsens inequalities must be addressed. We are, as Switzerland, committed to establish strong digital governance frameworks aligned with international law and the different processes, ensuring fair and secure data use that protect individual dignity and safety. We are all here committed to advancing digital inclusion through open, rights-respecting and sustainable approaches, but we must recognize that the declining landscape of ODA and philanthropic capital poses a serious challenge, but also an urgent call for innovation and coordination also in the way we work. We are all convinced, and you just asked what we are striving for, is really that we all believe that meaningful Internet access is not a luxury, it’s really a foundational element of economic development, participation, democratic participation and community resilience. Switzerland is a member of the Freedom Online Coalition, and in line with the donors’ principles for human rights in the digital age at the Coalition published in 2023, we support efforts that are transparent, locally grounded and aligned with broader development goals. So, to this end, we see value in pooling resources, whether through catalytic funding, regional investment mechanism or blended finance, in order to unlock scalable and context-sensitive solutions. But we need, really most importantly, to ensure that these solutions are community-driven, inclusive and capable of strengthening local digital ecosystems rather than creating dependency. So really, this session is an opportunity to rethink how we work together, but not just how we fund. So, let’s see how we can construct a collective impact framework that builds. on Existing Knowledge, centering on local centres, local actors, bringing together funders, implementers and communities into a strategic alignment. These are great assemblages, but it’s a big question also. So let’s see how we can do so to more effectively close the digital divide and ensure that communities are not left behind in this digital transformation. So a question for all of us, I mean, how can we collectively address this growing gap and ensure that digital progress benefits everyone, not just a few?

Neeti Biyani: Thank you, Remy. I think you did my job there. That was going to be my next question, actually. So maybe before I just go back to some of the speakers, I wanted to open up the question to the audience and ask if you wanted to step in at this point and share any ideas, any reflections you had about, you know, how do we bridge the gaps that we see in internet development, digital development at the moment? Remy brought in, you know, a very key element of what the rest of the conversation is hopefully going to focus on, which is establishing a collective impact framework or ways of thinking where we are not competing, but we’re sharing space and we’re working with one another to hopefully make change, transformation, impact more sustainable, where we’re not reinventing the wheel, excuse me, but we’re replicating and scaling solutions where we can. The floor is open. The mic’s all yours. If you want to jump in, share your ideas, share your thoughts.

Audience: Yes, hello. I work for a Norwegian company within law enforcement, and we currently sell to… police in all across the world. What we see is it’s difficult to sell to countries that are used to getting funding, even though they are, you know, have support from the UN system. It is a lot of skepticism around how this can be done. And also this zero trust is also difficult to handle. So there are ways that this works in the current setup. And we are happy to offer a low cost version of our tools to these regions, but it’s difficult to find the way. So I think that is, there are options of using current setups that we’re using in every other country. But it’s the zero trust and the lack of kind of solutions and ways to work around this that is difficult, I would say. So how to get in, how to be able to market or talk about the solution, because nobody wants to talk about who they’re collaborating with, if it’s a private company. So there’s a lot of skepticism around private companies. And I think this is a challenge that could have an easy solution. If there was kind of a marketplace or one or another way of dealing with these challenges. So I don’t know if anybody has any experience with this or yeah, can help.

Neeti Biyani: Okay, maybe we can, yeah, Maarten, just before I come to you, maybe we can take one more reflection before we go back to the panel. Ah, I see someone already at the mic there. Yeah, please go ahead.

Audience: I don’t have my headphones in, so I can’t hear. Should I go for it? Thank you. My name is Molly. I’m with the Digital Health and Rights Project, and I’ve just released a research report looking at seven ODA donors in Europe alongside the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust looking at their investments into digital health. We found it really difficult to understand where investments were being made, who to talk to, different collaborating partners, and I’m really interested in this idea of collaboration and how we can work together as funders and other stakeholders, but transparency in those investment amounts, where they’re being invested and who we’re working with is really important. So I wondered if the speakers had any comments on transparency and tracking and M&E for investment portfolios. Thank you.

Neeti Biyani: That’s a great question. Thank you. Maarten, if I could go to you for the first reflection, if you had any responses before checking in with the rest of the panel. Yeah, no, thanks.

Maarten Botterman: Thanks a lot. I think it’s a very good question. What we see is there is a lot of offer of willingness to help, but how do you get that to help where it’s most needed? And there is organizations to focus on that. I think the crucial element is that if you talk about digital inclusion, if you really want to serve the world with the internet, if you want the world to access the internet, you also need local capacity building. And without local understanding of what’s needed and what can help, it’s very difficult to lend anything there successfully. So there is initiatives that really follow up on that, ranging from youth training programs to, for instance, the Global Forum for Cyber Expertise, that has capacity building workshops in diverse regions, where they bring in global knowledge together with local knowledge and local stakeholders to match what’s needed today, how good practice looks like, how to implement it. from the global perspective, Topol Tweif, Insights, and Local Needs, and then work together on, so, how would an action plan, what actions could we draw from here that would really help us to leapfrog? Because many of the problems that we have in different regions are already solved somewhere in the world. And also, I think, strategically, we recognise very much in the ICANN strategic plan. If it’s about inclusion, you need to work with locals. You need to make sure that you reach out. And also, Internet Society is very active in reaching out to the regions in that way. So, without contact in the local community, how can you successfully lend a global donation? Global Forum for Cyber Expertise is one of those things. But indeed, it’s to funnel it right and transparency is limited. I realised that we had a conference in Ghana, in Accra, where somebody from the UN presented all the different funds that were available to stimulate something of the Internet in the region. And there were like 60 different ones. Impossible to see where they overlap, how they connect, etc. So, we really need to work on that, and organisations like GFC, but also Internet Society, Global Cyber Alliance and other bodies, they can be very helpful in that, because they understand it’s about linking the global to what’s needed local.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Maarten. Do any of my other panellists have responses or views to what we’ve heard so far from the audience? Franz?

Franz von Weizsaecker: Yeah, I would like to respond to the intervention from the Norwegian company trying to sell a digital government solution worldwide. and I do see a major gap and I do see there is an unhealthy tendency sometimes that some of the aid projects they come basically saying like okay here’s your solution we bring it and this is what we want to bring and so it’s a very much supply oriented approach and then not looking about how does the government procure these services in their local national legal system and not looking about how this is going to be how the operational cost of it is going to be covered resulting in quite a few of solutions that come there and then as soon as the project is over they’re gone and that is very unhealthy tendency and therefore I believe the solution to the challenge you were describing is this is a governmental solution so it needs to go through the national governmental procurement process it needs to be a conscious decision by a competent procurement body saying like is this something make or buy is this something which part of the solution can we can we do and maintain locally through our ministerial staff which part of the solution do we need to buy what’s the mode of purchase is this software as a service do we purchase hardware what what is the mode so and that requires quite some more capacity and procurement than is present in many of our partner countries so I definitely am a great advocate in favor of supporting even though it’s not a sexy topic but supporting public procurement for digital solutions that is that is really at the core of it to achieving a lot of the development goals in the line ministries in the security sector as the example you mentioned.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks Franz, Diya you wanted to respond as well?

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Yeah thank you I think I’ll try to get a bit to the second question but also maybe till the time of the first one I think one of the challenges we also see in the broader digital transformation narrative is this I think, not really by design, but over the years, sort of this unhealthy tension between digital development and human rights. And I think that itself is the reason why, you know, we don’t see the kind of transparency, see the kind of ownership, or see the kind of, I would say, sort of clarity from many of, particularly in the Global South, right? So I think that tension between, you know, where transformation comes at the cost of human rights, I think that narrative, in many ways, has actually been quite challenging to navigate, particularly in the digital kind of development space. But that has also, at the same time, created this other tension, which is, you know, what we call the norm shapers versus norm takers, right? So you have the Global North, who are shaping the norms, you know, you go to the IGF, look around you, there’s just so few Global South representatives, whether it’s governments, whether it’s civil society, whether it’s the private sector. So there’s also that, because of that tension, I think, even more, there’s this also this culture of, you know, imposition that has also come over the years, where, you know, some of the norm shapers are kind of also deciding what gets done in some of the Global South countries. So to Frances’ point, you know, I think in some ways, you know, ODA, while having a lot of meaningful transformation in many countries, and meaningful impact in many parts of the world, has also kind of permeated that system of, you know, that tension between norm shapers and norm takers, where, you know, you’re constantly having other countries defining in some ways how you should be thinking about development, how you should be thinking about your economy. And that continues to be a challenge. And I think and I think part of trying to tackle that, which goes a bit into Remy’s points, you know, how do we work collectively together, I think is really kind of recognizing that digital transformation and human rights actually can work hand in hand. And when people in the in the norm receiving parts of the world are able to start defining the conditions in which they’re going to take something or reject something. They have the rights to decide, make those choices, I think. Then we see a little bit more of that negotiation, a little bit more of that empowerment and that ownership happening.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Diya. That’s a great perspective. And, you know, one that we should try and unpack more, depending on if we have the time. I know that we have a question online. My colleague Omar is with us here as online moderator. Omar, do you want to come in with the question you have?

Online moderator: Yeah, sure. Thank you, Neeti. So we have an insight. One of the participants, Maarten, says that in our work at the UNUEGOV with the governments and stakeholders globally, we often observe the following in relation to the Internet auctions and digital government investment, including those with donor contributions. First, licensing auctions often end up with a focus on profit optimization. This often leads to slower rollout of the infrastructure by telcos. Once license is issued, subpar infrastructure is in remote or less profitable areas and or increase relative cost to end user. While government naturally want to profit maximize it, it often become counterproductive to digital inclusion, affordable access. And this dilemma is seen in both. developed in emerging economies. Second point he mentions is that many government ICT investments are not focusing on post-project benefit realization, cost benefit, productivity gains are generally not monitored or measured. This often leads to envisioned resource relocation is not happening in practice, including to reinvest new service in new solutions. So this was Maarten. I have a question from Robert. Hold on, let me, he has got two questions. The first one is I would like to know what the panelists have to say about very low digital knowledge in global south. Investing in digital infrastructure is fine, but need to go hand in hand with global scaling. The second question he asks is that, okay, thank you, moderator, for pointing out the access in quality of access. Internet down here in Africa is still very slow, inexpensive. I would like to know what the panelists have to say. Thank you.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you. Thank you, Omar, and thank you to the panelists. Thank you to the audience who’s joining us online and for your wonderful thoughts and you know, useful questions. I think for both of the questions that we’ve heard, let me first maybe turn to Raj. We’ve, you know, at the APNIC Foundation, had quite significant experience with skilling across various different groups. I know that the APNIC Foundation also has quite a bit of work that we’re doing on meaningful access, quality of access, bringing about affordability of connectivity. Would you want to step in here?

Raj Singh: So, yes, just a couple of things though. One, there was a question about submarine cables. There was a reference to submarine cables, right, in one of the comments. I have a comment on that. You know, there’s a lot of submarine cables being deployed all across the world. The problem is, it’s the cables that are being deployed. There’s no supporting ecosystem that’s being set up at the same time. And in particular, I’m talking about regions such as the Pacific Islands, but as well as other parts of the world. Now, some of the reasons these submarine cables are suddenly being deployed is geopolitical in nature. I think you all recognize that. Some are, of course, very private sector driven. Irrespective of why it’s happening, the fact is, cables are being landed in economies. And when you ask the locals, what are you doing? Has it improved capacity? Yes, they’ve got a big, fat internet pipe coming in. But there’s no supporting ecosystem that can actually leverage the potential that the cable has. You know, there is no supporting ecosystem around creating new industries that could leverage that. Yeah, you can try and retrofit old industries into using whatever capacity is there, but how about the new economy that we want to build using digital connectivity? So that’s one issue. And I’ve raised this multiple times, including with some of the governments who are actually funding these cables. for various developing economies. There’s no clear answer yet, so I’ll also say that, on why that focus is not there yet. In terms of capacity building, and there was a comment about building skills, is this necessary as building connectivity? I absolutely agree. At the APNIC Foundation, we’ve done something interesting this year. We’ve got a new strategic plan that we’ve developed, and what we’ve done is actually we’re going to start speaking about capacity building in a very different way. It’s no longer for us, and I would suggest for the rest of the world, it’s not about building capacity anymore, it’s about building capabilities. Because when you have capabilities, then you can do things. So we’ve been using capacity building for probably three decades, if not more, in this sector. I think enough of that, now we need to build capabilities. And when I talked about the submarine cable example, the capability does not exist. The connectivity capability exists, but not leveraging a capability out of that cable or what it could do to that economy. There was, I’m sorry, just give me one more minute. The comment we had from my right, the person talked about M&E and transparency and so on. A quick comment on that, that’s something I think we’ve also been looking very hard at at the Foundation in particular. So part of our remit is also grant-making. So we’ve got, in fact, the Asia-Pacific’s longest-running innovation fund. It’s been running for 16 years now, and it’s supported some great technologies and developments over the years. But one thing, since I took over the CEO role, what I’ve been looking at, I am no longer interested in the outputs that those projects create. I want to see outcomes. And that goes to something Remy said at the beginning when he was talking about the structural or the ecosystem that needs to be built. So that’s structural in nature, right? And I think a lot of times we get so carried away with trying to do little things at the very granular level. We don’t recognize that if we don’t build a supporting ecosystem, if we don’t make the structural changes, all that is just a one-shot. I think Franz maybe said something about something dropping in and then you go and that’s it. So I think that the need for the structural changes is very, very important and more so to focus on outcomes. And that goes to things like M&E, which the person also mentioned. If I look at a lot of the metrics that are being used, the metrics are very output-related, they’re not outcome-related. And that’s something else that we’re trying to focus on. So Maarten, maybe there’s some advice there for you and your grant-making. I’m happy to have a chat with you and your team on how we can make that better. So thanks, Neeti.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Raj. And thank you to everyone who intervened. Maybe we can come back for a final round of reflections once we’ve discovered a few more things with the panel. I think we’ve heard a lot of thoughts about how to make sure that impact and transformation is more outcome-oriented, how it should really help human beings, societies at large, better their social and economic outcomes, their lives, really. How there are still significant structural challenges that we’re experiencing. And finally, because this panel is about the global majority, it is about the developing regions, how do we then therefore determine our own development goals and our own development outcomes and transformation pathways? So maybe, Franz, if I can start by picking your brain, how does the GIZ understand and approach digital transformation? I’d like to also caveat that by saying that there is no commonly understood and accepted definition of digital transformation at the moment. So I’d just like to say that the way that we understand it at the APNIC Foundation is… Digital transformation is a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach to really using communication technologies, the internet, everything digital and tech, to better lives, to better quality of lives, and to further socio-economic outcomes. Franz, over to you.

Franz von Weizsaecker: Absolutely.

Online moderator: And Neeti, Maarten also has his hand raised, so later on maybe you could give him a chance.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you. Sorry, Maarten, I’ll come to you.

Franz von Weizsaecker: Yes, absolutely. It’s digital transformation, goes across all the sectors, and we don’t talk anymore about this is a health project. I mean, we say it’s a health project, but it has become a health in a digital age project or education in a digital age project and so on and so on. So that is for all the sectors. But then, of course, you have the underlying digital transformation enablers, which are across the sectors. So internet access, the most prominent one, and may I pick up the question from the online participant on why is internet so little available and so unaffordable in many parts of Africa? It’s the regulatory environment for that. It’s the investment environment for it. And it’s also in some parts, it’s just that the GDP density, like in some rural parts of Africa, there is no economic incentive to build infrastructure. And that maybe leads me to another point. We are about to waste a huge global public good, which is the lower earth orbit and the medium earth orbit by the scramble for space that is happening, driven by a couple of companies that compete in allocating their satellites in this low and medium earth orbit. In a way where it’s not like an open ecosystem where anybody can engage with, but it falls into the hand of a few. very powerful either private companies or governments to occupy that space, so that it will not be used, that this resource will not be put to the best possible use. And I have some slight hope, I don’t know yet where it’s leading to, but I have some slight hope that what either the European Union or some other players are trying to set up with the Iris Square initiative, that this will result in a sort of more of an open ecosystem approach on satellite connectivity, which allows, as you know, these orbits automatically, any satellite that flies over Europe also flies over Africa, if it’s a north-south orbit, or likewise east-west orbit. So you will have an investment that comes, that is fostered by the very, very high developed, like the developed economies, but automatically you’re building an infrastructure that is available for the very low GDP per square kilometre parts of the world, and it will make it economically much more feasible to connect these areas as well. If we are able to establish a framework in which there is good competition, and that’s the second answer to the question, there’s sometimes lack of competition in those telecommunications markets. If there’s one incumbent, and then there is competition from the sky, that also is a factor to lower the prices. So, yeah, that’s my answer to your question.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Franz. Maarten, is your comment or intervention to do with digital transformation?

Maarten Botterman: I think so. Okay, go ahead. Well, basically, in a way, it connects also to Frans’ comment about, for instance, low orbit networks. Accessibility is key if you want to participate in the digital transformation, and as the dear colleague asked online in this question, is not only accessibility but also affordability of that for people. It was so good quality. And part of the answer is in what Franz gave. It’s competing infrastructures. I mean, if you just do Starlink for low-orbit networks, it would be very difficult to have a competitive offer. If there’s some kind of competition between networks, be it Starlink, be it 5G, 4G, 3G networks, or even making good use of LoRaWAN in areas where that would be best in connection with the C cables from Dutch. I think then we talk about enabling something. And let me take you back to 1996 when I worked for the European Commission, I admit. And I had the honor and pleasure of running the European Telework Agenda. And I got to one of the outskirts of Europe. I mean, within Europe, it’s not the world, but also in Europe, there were areas that were less connected. And this specific area was the Western Isles, which is in the very north of Scotland. And by that time, they just had one big line from the two large islands for telecom to get access, to get bits from also other telecom providers and make sure there was good quality. The local council took it upon them to define a strategy for how they would want to do this digital transformation over there, how they would commit to supporting and promoting a digital transformation by their own requirement of products, of access, but also stimulation of their local community in what they call the telework commitment. that led to much higher connectivity. But that’s why it’s so important that it’s understood locally what digital transformation can bring for you. Because if you don’t create a pool from that location, what you will get is what the big companies want to push. And that may not always serve you well. So back to really the matter of making sure that local understanding arises of what’s needed and then to get it. Last point on the point that was made by this gentleman on slow and expensive networks in Africa. This is also where governments can make a difference and a very good example there is India. What one can see in India is that internet access and participation is set as a priority in the digital India plan. And one of the key conditions that helps a lot is to ensure that access to the internet for people is affordable. And government can play a role there either by ensuring competition of infrastructures or if there is too little competition by imposing lower reasonable rates. I hope it is a digital development enough.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you, Maarten. I think on that note, I want to come to Remy. Remy, we’ve heard some interesting perspectives, you know, from the panel itself, from, you know, our participants online, as well as the audience we have here today. Where we’ve talked about digital transformation, the key role, the very unique role that indeed only governments can play in trying to determine what national strategies can look like, what those development outcomes look like. How do we know that we’ve gotten to a place where we can claim that we’ve benefited? you know, many, many of our citizens and our people. On the other hand, we’ve also heard some key questions about, you know, meaningful digital transformation, where we’re factoring in accessibility, affordability, where we’re talking about cooperation, where we’re talking about sharing infrastructure. I’d maybe like to glean your thoughts on these, and I’d like to ask you a follow-up question, which is, what is the role that you think government interventions can play here? Vis-a-vis, what is the role that the market itself and competition can play here?

Remy Friedmann: Thank you, big question. Thank you, Neeti. Well, digital transformation is not only ensuring equitable access to the internet worldwide. This comes with a responsibility, because digital transformation is everything that comes with access. We all have the same connectivity, the same speed. Do we have the capacity to deal with the other side of the coin and be responsible in using the internet? And their governments have the role of protecting human rights, setting standards, the necessary safeguards. And that’s why governments are coming together, for example. It was mentioned in the online coalition and their principles. The workforce working in the tech industry must be a right-respecting workforce. But the rights of the workforce need to be respected as well. So, it’s a fourth industrial revolution. It’s a transition, as we speak, of just transition, when we talk about a fair, I would say, energy transition, climate action that needs to respect human rights. The same thing happens with digital transformation and the fact that it comes with We have a responsibility, we still have the obligation to protect human rights, companies need to respect human rights, citizens, individuals need to have access to effective remedy when the rights are not respected and everything we are discussing here at the IGF and in other spaces about respecting human rights in the digital space, everything becomes relevant when we have equitable access, do we have the capacity and there, well, we have capacity building and that’s also an element, development cooperation must come together with capacity building on cyber resilience for example, how cyber development comes with cyber capability or capacity building as well. So that’s why I was saying we need to join forces across different disciplines, use existing frameworks but sometimes really governments have an important role to play, but needless to say that.

Neeti Biyani: Diya, if I turn to you with a similar question of digital transformation, what role does the government have to play here? I know that some bit of your context is also informed by when governments cannot fulfil that role. I know this is a bit of a stretch, probably not what we are here to interrogate, but because the government has a very key role to play here, maybe a very short reflection from you on a scenario like that.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Yeah, thank you for that. I think Remy actually articulated quite well, we are both part of the Female Online Coalition with the advisory network and I think a lot of what we talk about is the role of governments not just to tackle the digital divide, and I think Raj eloquently talked about we see digital divides being created every day in different ways. It’s not just being connected and unconnected, but it’s also connected and disconnected. It is also, you know, some having rights, some not having rights. It’s about being norm shapers versus norm takers. So there’s so many layers and layers of device that we see across the board. So I think, you know, in the coalition, we talk quite a bit about, you know, how, what role can governments play to ensure that transformation is meaningful, and we say meaningful, that it actually takes into consideration some of the, you know, unique social and political context of where they’re existing, that it isn’t coming at the cost of, you know, an imposition and at the cost of people’s rights. So I think the perspective that I will perhaps take here is, I mean, we’ve heard from governments, we’ve heard from APNIC, perhaps of the actual communities that we serve, for whom we’re doing all of this. And I think from the community’s perspective, it’s, you know, oftentimes, I guess, people start, I guess, you know, having seen that distance from digital or seeing that, you know, seeing themselves removed from transformation, when they’re unable to exercise their voices, and they don’t feel empowered by it. And I think that empowerment is quite critical to a meaningful transformation agenda, where it’s not just about rights, but it’s also about redress. It’s about being able to shape it the way that that makes sense for them, it is able to tackle some very real problems for them. And I think connectivity is just the first step or access is the first step to a much broader conversation around, you know, how do we think about transformation in a way that actually serves the people it’s intended for.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you, Diya. I think we do have some time to go into one final round of reflections or thoughts or comments from our audience. Would anyone like to participate? The mic’s all yours.

Maarten Botterman: I’m always willing to reflect. I really see a lot coming together here. Digital transformation is ongoing, and we want it to be for the world. We want it to be for all. But we can’t stuff it down the throat of the world. We need to enable the world to come to the table, to participate, to make sure they know what they get, what they want, how they can benefit from all these things that the new technologies are offering. The Internet is offering. So I’m really very much inspired by the many young people who have engaged in programs like the Youth Ambassadors Program, the AP Youth Program, and other programs, because this shows that new generations will be even making more of a difference than we’ve been building the Internet in the old days, from the outset. So start young with capacity building. Take your responsibility as a stakeholder, whether you’re a government or an NGO or a company. Take your responsibility and empower people. Make sure that they know what to ask for and help them to get it, help to create the circumstances. I think there’s no way back for digital transformation, but we could do it in a way to make sure it’s fair, it’s inclusive and it serves the world as a whole.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Maarten. I think you’ve brought us to almost the close of the session on a very inspiring note. I think I’m just going to turn back to my panel for any final thoughts on everything we’ve heard today, everything we’ve discussed today. I will leave the audience with, finally, if I may start with Raj.

Raj Singh: Thanks, Neeti. Thanks to the panellists for joining us today. I think it’s been, we’ve discussed, we’ve covered a lot of ground. I’m not sure how well we answered the actual question that we had for today’s panel. So, what I will say, very quickly, is that we’re back to that same situation where funding is shrinking, issues keep on popping up, digital divides keep on widening. There are multiple organisations doing lots of things, be they governmental, non-governmental, private sector, philanthropic organisations and family offices and whatnot. Each time I look at what everyone’s doing, including my own organisation, it’s also very clear to me that there’s actually, we talk about collaboration, but there’s actually very little of it. Everyone’s got their specific objectives they have to do something and they go out and try and do it. Yes, there’s some discussions and some collaboration at some level, perhaps, but there still is a lot of duplication out there. I think that really is something we need to address, knowing that funding levels are shrinking. Because if we just keep on duplicating someone else’s work, I don’t think we’re actually achieving much in the end. So, I’ll just leave it at that, thanks.

Neeti Biyani: Franz?

Franz von Weizsaecker: All right, let me try to leave us with a positive note. In times of shrinking funding, it’s a time for reckoning as well and it’s a time for maybe reinventing the way how the international development community used to operate. And maybe it’s a time to really build on the sovereignty of governments, the sovereignty to determine their own digital future, to get away from the traditional donor and receiver model and to build on what really matters for the individual economies to emerge, good regulatory systems, good public procurement. good rule of law, a fair taxation system that does not rely entirely on taxing telecommunications, making internet very expensive, and that as a basis to encourage also investments also from private sector to become sovereign in many ways and less depending on international development. So ideally I would wish that our role as GIZ at some point may not be needed anymore, at least not in that form, and we’re shifting from the traditional development towards an international mode of cooperation. Yeah, we’re all trying to work ourselves out of a job.

Neeti Biyani: Remy?

Remy Friedmann: Thank you. Well, maybe pointing at the fact that digital exclusion is fundamentally a development issue, as it was already mentioned, and that we need to somehow break the silos and integrate mainstream digital inclusion within different streams, for example within climate resilience, gender equity, education, health agendas, rather than treating this as a really a separate infrastructure challenge. So this could be maybe a way to go really, because it has to be mainstream, it’s not a separate thing that is only related to infrastructure and access.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you. Diya?

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: I guess I get the last word, but unless Maarten wants to come in. You know, one of the things I always take a lot of inspiration from is I come from the traditional development sector, right? So I’ve worked in digital, but digital for health, digital for agriculture, the old ICT4D crowd. And, you know, whenever I feel a bit hopeless, I think a lot about the polio movement in the world, and it was an impossible problem to solve many, many years ago. It still had this, it’s not similar, but, you know, infrastructure gaps, funding gaps, collaboration gaps. And I think the problem got really, truly solved when all the different actors began to come together and realize this is how we’re going to solve polio. We’re going to innovate around vaccines. We’re going to go out to the most ruralest part of the world and solve this disease. And in many ways, the world has eradicated some out of polio. There’s a few more cases not coming up, but by and large, it has eradicated polio. So I think if we can solve something as dramatic and as drastic as that, I think there is a natural incentive within digital transformation, digital infrastructure, digital connectivity community to come together. And I hope this current moment that we’re in, where funding is shrinking, it seems that we’re back to square one. I hope this becomes a moment of reckoning to realize that we can really solve tough problems better when we come together. So my hope for the Oda community is that this isn’t just a cry for help or something, but also a real moment to see the value of coming together as a community.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you. Thank you. Maarten, and just in the interest of time, I am going to wrap this up here wearing my moderator’s hat. I wanted to very quickly say thank you to all of our panelists who joined us today, especially Maarten, who joins us virtually. Thank you for attending this session hosted by the APNIC Foundation, to everyone who’s here in person and online as well. I just want to leave everyone on the note of saying I agree with a lot of sentiments we’ve heard today, that I think we are stronger together. I think we need to have very informed conversations about exactly how we determine our own transformation, how we collaborate between various stakeholder groups, and how we make sure that we’re holding space for different voices to be heard as we determine our own development futures. Having said that, I think in the Asia-Pacific, with the region that’s as The APNIC Foundation is as vast and diverse as it is, unlike any other region in the world. The APNIC Foundation has the unique privilege of working across 56 economies, serving the many communities that we do, hopefully, you know, having some amount of impact over the course of our work, touching lives and, you know, making sure that we’re leaving communities a bit better than how we found them. We’re very open to having more conversations with different stakeholders, different groups, different communities, you know where to find us. And once again, thank you for being part of this conversation. Hopefully, we’ll see you next year as well.