Summary

The WSIS Plus 20 Forum focused on strengthening digital governance and international cooperation to build an inclusive digital future, bringing together representatives from governments, international organizations, enterprises, and think tanks. The Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies hosted the event, emphasizing the need for collaborative approaches to address emerging technology challenges and opportunities. Opening remarks highlighted four key principles: seizing AI opportunities for high-quality development, maintaining innovation and openness to ensure digital dividends reach all humanity, enhancing mutual trust to address security risks, and encouraging multi-stakeholder participation in global digital governance.

Dr. Francis Gurry identified two major governance challenges posed by digital technologies: the unprecedented speed of technological adoption and increasing complexity of emerging technologies like AI, quantum computing, and 5G. He noted the growing lag between technology deployment and regulatory responses, citing the example of AI training on copyrighted data as a divisive issue requiring international coordination. Thomas Basikolo from ITU presented the AI for Good initiative, showcasing projects like “Innovate for Impact” and “Innovation Factory” that develop AI solutions for healthcare, education, and climate action while addressing challenges such as energy consumption and the digital divide.

China Mobile’s representative shared practical examples of 5G-AI integration, including building 2.5 million base stations and developing multi-modal AI models for various industries. However, speakers acknowledged significant challenges including uneven global digital infrastructure development, insufficient integration capabilities in traditional industries, and AI talent shortages. The discussion emphasized that international cooperation through organizations like ITU, BRICS, and UN frameworks is essential for creating inclusive digital governance that ensures no one is left behind in the digital transformation.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Speed and Complexity Challenges in Digital Governance**: The rapid pace of technological innovation (exemplified by ChatGPT reaching 1 million users in 3 days vs. Netflix’s 3.5 years) and increasing complexity of emerging technologies are outpacing traditional governance frameworks, creating regulatory gaps and enforcement challenges.

– **AI Applications and Infrastructure Development**: Focus on leveraging AI and 5G technologies for societal benefit through initiatives like ITU’s “AI for Good” platform, China Mobile’s massive infrastructure deployment (2.5 million 5G base stations), and capacity building programs, particularly targeting developing countries and underserved communities.

– **Digital Divide and Inclusive Development**: Addressing the uneven global distribution of digital infrastructure and capabilities, with emphasis on international cooperation to ensure marginalized communities, especially in Africa and developing nations, are not left behind in the digital transformation.

– **International Cooperation Frameworks**: Discussion of various governance models including the BRICS cooperation mechanism, UN-based initiatives, and the need for multi-stakeholder approaches that balance innovation with regulation while fostering global collaboration on digital policies.

– **Sustainability and Resource Challenges**: Concerns about the environmental impact of digital technologies, including massive energy consumption by AI data centers and the need for critical minerals (potentially 500 times more demand by 2060), highlighting the tension between technological advancement and environmental sustainability.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to strengthen global digital governance mechanisms and promote international cooperation for building an inclusive digital future, specifically focusing on how emerging technologies can be harnessed for societal benefit while addressing governance challenges and ensuring equitable access across all nations and communities.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and optimistic tone throughout, with speakers emphasizing partnership, shared responsibility, and collective action. While acknowledging significant challenges (digital divides, regulatory gaps, environmental concerns), the tone remained constructive and solution-oriented, with participants sharing concrete examples of successful international cooperation and expressing commitment to working together toward common goals.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Zhiqiang Lin** – From the Data and Technical Support Center of Cyberspace Administration of China (Forum moderator/host)

– **Jiang Bai** – Deputy Director General of Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies, representative of the forum organizers

– **Francis Gurry** – Vice Chair of the World Internet Conference, former Director-General of WIPO

– **Thomas Basikolo** – Program Coordinator of the ITU Telecom Communication Standardization Bureau, works in the AI for Good team

– **Yuhong Huang** – General Manager of China Mobile Research Institute

– **Ke Gong** – Executive Director of Chinese Institute of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Strategy, former President of World Federal of Engineering Organization

– **Torbjorn Fredriksson** – Head of the Economical and Digital Economy branch at the UN Trade and Development

– **Wolfgang Kleinwaechter** – Professor Emeritus of University of Aarhus, Denmark

– **Luca Belli** – Director of the CyberBRICS Project at FGV Law School, Professor at FGV Law School where he directs the Center for Technology and Society (participated via video)

**Additional speakers:**

None – all speakers who participated in the discussion were included in the provided speakers names list.

# WSIS Plus 20 Forum: Strengthening Digital Governance and International Cooperation for an Inclusive Digital Future

## Executive Summary

The WSIS Plus 20 Forum brought together representatives from governments, international organisations, enterprises, and think tanks to address the critical challenges of digital governance in an era of rapid technological advancement. Hosted by the Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies, the forum emphasised the urgent need for collaborative approaches to harness emerging technologies whilst ensuring equitable access and sustainable development. The discussion revealed both significant consensus on the need for international cooperation and notable disagreements on regulatory approaches and development priorities.

## Opening Framework and Key Principles

The forum was moderated by **Zhiqiang Lin** from the Data and Technical Support Centre of Cyberspace Administration of China, with **Bai Jiang**, Deputy Director General of Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies, representing the forum organisers. Bai established four foundational principles that guided the discussion: seizing AI opportunities for high-quality development, maintaining innovation and openness to ensure digital dividends reach all humanity, enhancing mutual trust to address security risks, and encouraging multi-stakeholder participation in global digital governance.

These principles reflected a broader vision of the internet as “a shared home of humanity” requiring collective responsibility for creating a clean, safe, and prosperous digital space. Bai highlighted China’s implementation of the Global AI Governance Initiative and extended invitations to participate in the 2025 World Internet Conference Wuzhen Summit, noting that “friendship is the only ship that never sinks,” quoting Karl Spitaler.

## The Governance Challenge: Speed and Complexity

**Dr Francis Gurry**, Vice Chair of the World Internet Conference and former Director-General of WIPO, provided a compelling framework for understanding contemporary digital governance challenges. He identified two fundamental issues: the unprecedented speed of technological adoption and the increasing complexity of emerging technologies like AI, quantum computing, and 5G networks.

Drawing on Arthur Conan Doyle’s observation that “knowledge begets knowledge as money bears interest,” Gurry illustrated the acceleration of technological adoption with concrete metrics. He noted that Netflix took three and a half years to reach one million users in 1999, Facebook required 13 months in 2004, whilst ChatGPT achieved the same milestone in just three days in 2022. This exponential acceleration is creating an ever-widening gap between technology deployment and regulatory responses.

The complexity challenge was equally significant, with Gurry observing that whilst we intuitively understand that innovation is quickening from our daily experiences, “we don’t really have a good measure of it.” He cited the ongoing controversy over AI training on copyrighted data as an example of how new technologies create divisive issues requiring international coordination, noting that 46 lawsuits are currently pending in the United States alone, reflecting “bitter divisions” between technology and cultural communities. This represents what he called “a classic case for international intervention.”

## AI for Good: Practical Applications and Global Initiatives

**Thomas Basikolo**, Program Coordinator of the ITU Telecom Communication Standardisation Bureau working in the AI for Good team, presented practical applications of technology for addressing global challenges. He outlined the AI for Good initiative, which serves as a platform for cross-sector collaboration aimed at leveraging artificial intelligence for societal benefit.

Basikolo highlighted specific programmes including “Innovate for Impact” and “Innovation Factory,” which develop AI solutions for healthcare, education, and climate action whilst addressing challenges such as energy consumption and the digital divide. These initiatives focus particularly on supporting local talent and entrepreneurship in developing countries, with concrete examples of capacity building programmes that have shown success in various regions.

The AI for Good approach represents a practical framework for ensuring that technological advancement serves inclusive development goals. Basikolo emphasised the importance of AI readiness frameworks to help countries prepare for digital transformation, acknowledging that whilst AI offers tremendous potential, it also presents challenges including massive energy consumption and the need for environmental standards to address e-waste and emissions.

## Infrastructure Development and Industry Integration

**Yuhong Huang**, General Manager of China Mobile Research Institute, provided insights into large-scale infrastructure deployment and its role in enabling digital transformation. China Mobile has built what Huang described as the world’s largest 5G network, with 2.5 million base stations, alongside significant AI computing infrastructure including 43 EFLOPs computing capacity, IPv6 barrier network, and 40-gigabit optical network to enable AICT (AI integrated with communication and IT technology infrastructure) development.

This infrastructure investment has yielded practical results, with over 50,000 5G use cases developed across vertical industries including healthcare, manufacturing, and smart cities. Huang noted the emergence of “new three products” – AI-embedded devices, intelligent electronic vehicles, and robots – replacing traditional consumer electronics like TV, refrigerator, and washing machine.

Through China Mobile’s Intelligence Integration Index (MI3) research conducted with Omedia and GTI, they identified several persistent challenges: uneven global digital infrastructure development, insufficient integration capabilities between AICT technologies and traditional industries, and shortage of AI talent limiting digital transformation. Huang also highlighted international partnerships including the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Framework and joint laboratory with Cinemas group in Indonesia.

## Global Economic Perspectives and Sustainability Concerns

**Torbjörn Fredriksson**, Head of the Economic and Digital Economy branch at UN Trade and Development, provided a sobering analysis of the economic and environmental implications of digital transformation. His presentation included striking statistics that reframed the discussion around questions of global equity and sustainability.

Fredriksson noted that six major American technology companies have a combined market capitalisation of almost $17 trillion, which is six times greater than the total GDP of the African continent and 57 times more than all official development assistance provided by OECD countries. This comparison highlighted the extraordinary concentration of digital wealth and power.

The environmental challenges were equally concerning. Fredriksson explained the evolution of resource intensity in communication devices: smartphones in the 1960s required 10 elements from the periodic table, mobile phones in 1990 used 27 elements, whilst modern smartphones require 63 elements – more than half of all known elements. He projected that AI data centres are expected to consume more electricity than all energy-intensive industries combined in the United States, whilst demand for platinum group minerals could increase 500 times by 2060.

These statistics raised fundamental questions about the sustainability of current digital development trajectories and whether it is possible to obtain necessary minerals and metals “without sacrificing the world.”

## Governance Frameworks and International Cooperation Models

**Professor Wolfgang Kleinwaechter**, Professor Emeritus of University of Aarhus, Denmark, brought historical perspective and definitional clarity to the governance discussion. As a former member of the United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance with a mandate from Kofi Annan, Kleinwaechter emphasised the need for clear understanding of what constitutes governance in the digital age.

He outlined three elements of internet governance established 20 years ago: the multi-stakeholder approach involving governments, international organisations, businesses, academia, and civil society; the collaborative approach with shared principles, norms, and decision-making procedures; and the holistic approach covering both technical and policy layers. This framework, rooted in UN precedent, provided conceptual grounding for understanding governance challenges across different technologies and contexts.

Kleinwaechter advocated for political frameworks such as AI declarations rather than legally binding instruments at the global level, whilst maintaining that legally binding documents might be more appropriate at regional levels. This approach recognised the complexity of governing rapidly evolving technologies whilst maintaining flexibility for effective international cooperation.

## Global South Leadership and BRICS Cooperation

**Professor Luca Belli**, Director of the CyberBRICS Project at FGV Law School, participated via video to highlight the increasingly important role of Global South countries in shaping international digital policies. He emphasised BRICS as a significant “club governance mechanism” that facilitates cooperation among Global South nations on digital policy issues.

Belli noted that the first global cybercrime treaty was “lobbied intensely by several BRICS members” and “brokered also with the very important help of Brazilian diplomacy,” demonstrating Global South engagement in digital governance. Under the Brazilian BRICS presidency, there is a focus on strengthening Global South cooperation for inclusive and sustainable governance, with a commitment to create a global data framework for legal interoperability among member states.

This perspective highlighted a shift from traditional North-South dynamics in international governance, recognising emerging economies as key drivers of digital policy innovation.

## Engineering and Capacity Building Perspectives

**Ke Gong**, Executive Director of Chinese Institute of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Strategy and former President of World Federation of Engineering Organisations, provided insights into practical capacity building approaches, particularly highlighting the UN General Assembly resolution “Enhancing the International Collaboration on Capacity Building of Artificial Intelligence.”

Gong detailed successful engineering capacity building programmes in Africa, specifically describing a Kenya pilot program involving 50 engineers from Kenya Power, Kenya Railway, and 10+ industrial companies. The five-day program was described by participants as “eye-opening, enlightening, engaging, exciting,” demonstrating how targeted capacity building initiatives can create sustainable foundations for digital development in emerging economies.

## Areas of Consensus and Continuing Challenges

The forum revealed strong consensus on several key principles. All speakers agreed that international cooperation is essential for effective digital governance, with unanimous support for multistakeholder approaches involving multiple types of organisations and communities. There was also agreement that digital technologies must serve inclusive development and bridge digital divides rather than exacerbate existing inequalities.

The speed and complexity of technological change creating significant governance challenges was universally acknowledged, with all speakers recognising that traditional governance mechanisms struggle to keep pace with rapid innovation cycles. Notably, there was also strong consensus on environmental sustainability concerns, despite the forum’s focus on promoting digital technologies.

However, significant disagreements emerged on specific approaches. The most notable concerned regulatory mechanisms, with Gurry emphasising the need for international cooperation to address regulatory gaps, whilst Kleinwaechter specifically advocated against legally binding instruments at the global level, preferring political frameworks and declarations.

Different speakers also emphasised different priorities: Basikolo highlighted the benefits of AI through initiatives like AI for Good, whilst Fredriksson focused on environmental costs and unsustainable resource consumption. Similarly, Huang emphasised building massive infrastructure and expanding capabilities, whilst Fredriksson highlighted the problematic concentration of digital wealth and power.

## Future Commitments and Action Items

The forum generated several concrete commitments for future action. The Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies committed to hosting forums at the 2025 World Internet Conference Wuzhen Summit, with global think tanks contributing papers on building communities with shared future in cyberspace. The release of the 9th annual World Internet Development Report will present the latest achievements on global internet development and governance.

International cooperation initiatives will continue, including expansion of AI for Good programmes and engineering capacity building programmes in Africa following successful pilots. The development of AI readiness frameworks to help countries prepare for digital transformation represents another concrete outcome, whilst BRICS committed to creating a global data framework for legal interoperability among member states under the Brazilian presidency.

## Implications for Future Digital Governance

The forum revealed both the promise and complexity of international cooperation on digital governance. The strong consensus on the need for inclusive, sustainable, and collaborative approaches provides a foundation for future cooperation, whilst disagreements on specific mechanisms highlight the challenges of translating broad agreement into concrete policy actions.

The recognition of Global South leadership and the importance of environmental sustainability represents a maturing of digital governance discussions beyond purely technical considerations. The emphasis on practical capacity building and concrete applications demonstrates a shift towards implementation-focused approaches.

The discussion ultimately reinforced that digital governance is not merely a technical challenge but a fundamental question of how humanity will shape its technological future to serve the common good whilst preserving essential values and ensuring sustainable development for all. The combination of global cooperation with local needs-based approaches appears to offer the most promising path forward for addressing the complex challenges of governing digital transformation in an interconnected world.

Zhiqiang Lin: Okay, it’s time. Let’s get started. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, good morning, everyone. I’m Lin Zhiqiang from the Data and Technical Support Center of Cyberspace Administration of China. Welcome to the WSIS Plus 430 Forum, hosted by the Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies, focusing on strengthening digital governance and international cooperation of an inclusive digital future. We have convened global representatives from governments, international organizations, enterprises, and think tanks to deliberate critical topics, applications, and challenges of emerging technologies in building an information society, global digital governance mechanisms, and international cooperation. Our goal is to collectively advance the capacity building in digital governance, promote AI 5G adoption, and foster global digital cooperation. Now, let’s get started. First, I’m delighted to invite Mr. Bai Jiang, representative of the forum organizers, and Deputy Director General of Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies, to deliver opening remarks. Bai Jiang Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

Jiang Bai: good morning. It’s an honor and pleasure to gather with you in Geneva, the city of peace. On behalf of the Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies, I warmly welcome all participants to this WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event Forum. Our discussions will focus on strengthening digital governance and international cooperation for a closer digital future. The Internet is a shared home of all humanity. It is the common responsibility of the international community to make this home cleaner, safer, and more prosperous. As WSIS Plus 20 marks a significant milestone from the perspective of a think tank, I would like to share some observations on how to strengthen digital governance and international cooperation. First, we should seize the opportunities presented by AI to advance high-quality development of the information society. We must proactively embrace these historical opportunities, continue to deepen the integration of AI with real-world applications, and fully unleash expectations to empower economic and social progress so as to jointly build a smarter, more efficient, and brighter future for humanity. Second, we should stay committed to innovation and openness to ensure digital dividends are enjoyed by all humanity. China is actively implementing the Global AI Governance Initiative, providing more public goods to the international community by translating divisions through openness. We advocate for global sharing of AI. of Air Research Research. By narrowing the digital divide, we can enable our countries to share in the dividends of digital progress and work together to build an inclusive, equitable, and sustainable digital future. Second, third, we should enhance mutual trust, dialogue, and exchange to jointly address security risks and challenges, so as to maintain a peaceful, secure, open, cooperative, and orderly cyberspace. Fourth, we should encourage active participation from all parties and work together to build a global digital governance system. In the face of growing digital divides, lacking essential frameworks and a fragmented governance, we shall strengthen international cooperation and advocate multilateral and multi-party participation in global digital governance. We call on governments, international organizations, businesses, academia, and social organizations around the world to join and engage in the global digital governance agenda and promote building open, fair, and efficient governance mechanism. Chinese academia of cyberspace studies under the leadership of Cyberspace Administration of China is a national leader think tank specialized on cyberspace affairs. We are much willing to develop exchanges and cooperation with international organizations, global research institutes, enterprise, et cetera. At the 2025 World Internet Conference Wu Zheng Summit, Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies will host a few more at-release papers contributing from global think tanks on joint-built communities with a shared future in cyberspace. We sincerely invite all friends to participate in engaging discussions on global digital development and cooperation. We will release the 9th annual World Internet Development Report presenting the latest achievements on global internet development and governance. As Karl Spitaler, the Swiss Nobel laureate in literature, once said, there is no greater happiness than having friends who share the same breath and destiny with oneself. Together, let’s join hands to promote innovative, secure, and inclusive development in cyberspace, jointly promote the building of a community with a shared future in cyberspace, and stride confidently towards a bright digital future. To conclude, I wish the Forum a great success. Thank you.

Zhiqiang Lin: Thank you, Mr. Bai. Let’s move to the next session, keynote speech. We have previously consulted with experts and various institutions to determine these two topics for discussion. Kindly note that it is just speech time, so I shall be with you. The first topic is Application and Challenges of Emerging Technologies in Building the Information Society. It is our great honor to welcome Dr. Francis Gurry, Vice Chair of the World Internet Conference, former Director-General of WIPO, to deliver a keynote speech. Welcome.

Francis Gurry: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Lin Zhiqiang. Ladies and gentlemen, very good morning to you all. It’s a great pleasure to be here, and I’d like to thank the Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies for this opportunity to speak. Mr. Bai Jiang has set out a number of principles for governance to which I wholly subscribe. I’m going to speak about two aspects of governance, two challenges to governance, I think, that are brought about by digital technology in particular, but to some extent all technologies now, and conclude with one point for governance system design, which really is balance. So of the two challenges, I think that speed and complexity of contemporary technology are complicating the task of governance, and in particular, the life of our traditional institutions for governance, which were really developed in the Industrial Age, as I think we’re all very much aware. We know that the pace of innovation is very much quickening, and we know that from our daily lives. We don’t really have a good measure of it. However, I go back to Sherlock Holmes and Arthur Conan Doyle, who wrote in the 19th century, in 1885, that knowledge begets knowledge, as money bears interest. And so just as we have invention of new things, their deployment socially is speeding up at a great speed. Netflix, for example, it took Netflix three and a half years to reach 1 million users in 1999. It took Facebook 13 months to reach 1 million users in 2004, and it took ChatGPT three days to reach 1 million users in 2022. Now, at the same time as we have this great speed occurring, we also have complexity. And artificial intelligence, of course, quantum computing, 5G, 6G, nanotechnology, bioengineering, bioinformatics are only some of the very, very sophisticated fields of technology that are moving at this greater speed. So these twin, I think, challenges of speed and complexity are really major governance challenges for us. One challenge is the growing lag between the appearance and adoption of new technologies and the legislative or parliamentary or government response. And by definition, I think we know that radical new technologies don’t have a specific regulatory framework because they’re new. And so it may be that some existing laws do apply. We know we have protection of minors, defamation, privacy, personal information protection and so on. But there may also be voids or an inadequate. so many issues, the preoccupation of attention may go with one side and not the other. So in my view, there has been quite a preoccupation in Europe over the AI Act, and that has occupied much of the space, perhaps to the detriment of attention to strategy and industrial policy. But I just cited the example of Japan, where you have the opposite, really. It is an emphasis on industrial policy and strategy as opposed to, perhaps, the regulatory side. And the reason for this is quite simple, I think. It’s that governments don’t want to disadvantage their own economic actors. They don’t want to take a step which will put their economic actors and companies at a disadvantage from a regulatory point of view compared to other governments. This is the classic case for international, of course, intervention when you get a situation like this. And I’m perhaps running out of time, so I should be very quick. I have two more points, if I may, quickly. I think the one example is in my particular area, which is the training of AI models on copyrighted data and whether this is lawful or not. It’s a big issue all around the world, as we all know. And we’ve seen a lot of action on this. But it has really divided the tech community, on the one hand, from the cultural community, on the other hand. It’s quite a bitter division. We saw that play out, for example, in the United Kingdom, where the government came down on the side of the tech community, again, for the reason of not disadvantaging their own economic actors, even though the UK has an extraordinarily strong cultural industry. But this is playing out in all countries. It’s not just the UK. So my very last point is… And by the way, on that particular point, there are 46 lawsuits in the United States of America over this question, including all the content industries and then on one side and the tech operators on the other side. So my last point would be that as we go forward with governance, I think it’s going to be very important to find the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the interests of innovation and making sure that we do get new technologies that can be extremely useful and beneficial for society and in facing all of our challenges, but on the other hand, not to ignore some of the traditional values of society, such as culture and cultural creation in the particular example that I cited. So thank you very much.

Zhiqiang Lin: Thank you, Dr. Gurry, for sharing your wonderful insights on technology governance challenges. Next, let’s invite Mr. Thomas Basikolo, Program Coordinator of the ITU Telecom Communication Standardization Bureau, to give a speech. Welcome.

Thomas Basikolo: Thank you so much. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. First of all, I would like to give appreciation to the Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies for organizing this interesting session. We did appreciate your organization, as well as to WSIS for providing the forum. In my case, I would like to dwell on one area, which is AI, which is something that is at my heart. I do work at ITU in the AI for Good team, so we’re just having an event next door. So that’s why I would like to dwell on this topic, because I think it’s relevant to the discussion today. And the theme on applications and challenges of emerging technologies. First, I would like to highlight the applications. Of course, yesterday we had the Governance Day, which highlighted not only the positive aspects. We know that AI is a double-edged sword, which can be used for good, but also in other cases, unfortunately, can be used in bad instances. But we do know that emerging technologies, in this case, are really good to shape an inclusive digital future. For me, In my role being part of ITU, I’ve seen firsthand how the advancement of digital technologies can help to bring positive change. And in this case, in terms of digital technologies, over the past few years, I would say, in terms of AI, we have seen that there is a digital revolution being brought by these technologies. So we have seen advancements in AI, machine learning, but also other technologies in general. I think over the past five years, we’ve seen how blockchain, metaverse, augmented reality, they are also shaping our society. So these emerging technologies, they are redefining how we communicate, how we work, and also how we solve global challenges. And in our case, the innovations, they hold a good promise to build a robust information society, and we would like to have a society, one that is inclusive, that is sustainable, but also that is resilient. We don’t want to have a society that continue to bring the digital device or to increase the device. And we see that, of course, with great potential in terms of these technologies, there is also significant responsibility that we need to bear as a society. And the journey to harness these technologies so that it can benefit everyone is not without obstacles, and it is through strengthened digital governance, international cooperation, we can overcome these challenges. And one of the most inspiring examples that we are working on, I would highlight different examples from the AI for Good team. And this global platform is bringing together experts from different fields to develop AI solutions that can address the pressing societal challenges. These are from different sectors, from different domains such as health care, education, to climate action and disaster response. And AI for Good, at the moment, I would say it’s not just a forum for discussion, it is a catalyst for action. And through the different projects under the AI for Good, we are turning innovative ideas into real-world impact. And one important aspect is we have a project called Innovate for Impact, which supports experts and scholars from around the world, especially in developing countries, to develop AI-driven solutions that are tailored to local needs. So by focusing on these real-world problems, but also fostering cross-sector collaboration, this is one of the examples that is demonstrating how technology can be harnessed to bridge the gaps, but also build an inclusive society. And to complement these efforts, we also have another project, which is Innovation Factory. And this project is basically to nurture local talent and technology entrepreneurship, so that we can accelerate development of digital solutions. So by providing mentorship, providing resources, providing incubation, and a platform of digital solutions. So we do help the innovators to turn their ideas into scalable and impactful products and services. And if you go to the exhibition space, you’d find several interesting projects from the Innovate for Impact, showcasing their solutions, exhibiting their solutions that are driving change in society, from climate change, to healthcare, to education, and natural disaster management. All you can see there that are part of the Innovation Factory. So this not only drives economic growth, but also it strengthens the digital ecosystem from the grassroots. So it’s not only projects from the developing country, but also from the developed world, but also from developing countries. So we try to make sure that we drive positive change in the developing world as well. And of course, technology alone is not enough. We also want to build an inclusive information society, we must invest in people. So talent is another important aspect. And with this, we focus mainly on the youth, because we know that the youth are the future, the next generation that is going to build our ecosystem, technological ecosystem. So we have different projects, we have the AI Skills Coalition, we have the ITU AI Machine Learning Competitions. And these have emerged to be path two for youth engagement and capacity development, because we are providing real world problems that students can solve. So it complements their academic theoretical studies in classroom with real world data that they can use to complement and solve real world problems, but also they are contributing to the advancement of technology. So these competitions, they provide young innovators in developing countries with the skills, the mentorship and global and Prof. Thomas Basikolo. So, by tackling real-world challenges, the participants also gain hands-on experience to become active contributors on the digital revolution. And of course, to support these initiatives, these projects, we also have a project called AI Readiness, which plays a big role in helping countries, not only countries but also domains, to prepare for the digital age. And the project provides policymakers with the tools and frameworks they need to develop inclusive digital policies, but also infrastructure. And by focusing on readiness, we ensure that no one is left behind in the digital transformation. But of course, we have these successful projects, but it comes at a cost. We have also significant challenges that still remain. The rapid pace of technology, we can see, can outstrip governance frameworks. So, there has been discussion on how much can we bring our regulation. Is regulation stifling innovation? We have all these issues that we still need to come together to discuss and find solutions. And marginalized communities, particularly in rural and low-income areas, they risk being excluded to benefit from the digital innovation. But of course, the environmental impact cannot go unnoticed. Because these technologies, for example, AI, if you are talking about AI, of course, we have to make sure that we separate. We have the machine learning, natural language processing, deep learning, and then we have large language models. So, in the case of generative AI foundation models or large language models, we have seen that there’s issues with energy consumption. At technology, on its own, we have issues in terms of e-waste. So, we need to focus on these issues as well. We just don’t want to talk about the positive aspects, but also we need to include the negative aspects. And at ITU, we are committed to advance sustainability initiatives through different collaborative projects. We have the Green Digital Action, which promotes responsible digital transformation. We have Study Group 5, which develop international standards in environment, e-waste, and of course, emissions. Looking ahead, I believe that the path to inclusive digital future lies on collaboration. So, we need to make sure that we are collaborating, we are working together with different stakeholders. And by strengthening digital governance and international collaboration, we can ensure that emerging technologies save the common good. And at ITU, together with partners, we remain dedicated to build a world where digital opportunities are accessible to all, and where innovation is guided by principles of equity, accountability, and sustainability. So, at this point, I would like to thank you all for your commitment to shape a better digital future, and I hope together we can build an information society that leaves no one behind. Thank you very much.

Zhiqiang Lin: Thank you, Mr. Basikolo. Thank you, Dr. Basikolo, for your sharing on the latest update of ITU and AI for Good in promoting the application and digital technologies. Now let’s welcome Mr. Huang Yuhong, General Manager of China Mobile Research Institute to give a speech. Welcome.

Yuhong Huang: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I’m Huang Yuhong from China Mobile Research Institute. I’m very glad to join this forum to share with you about China Mobile’s practice in advancing the development of the latest ICT AI technology to build an inclusive digital future. Here I have a slide. As we all know that the latest ICT technology, like 5G, AI, is shaping the global socioeconomic landscape, influence a lot our daily life, the manufacturing, the governments, to make it more convenient, efficient, and productive. To make it happen, we think the AICT – AICT, I call it – is AI integrated with communication and IT technology infrastructure. We think a telecom operator should – we played an important role to build a strong and ubiquitous advanced infrastructure to enable the AICT development. So I’ll share about China Mobile’s practice. For information infrastructure, China Mobile has built the world’s largest network. For the mobile, for 5G, we already built 2.5 million base stations, which account for one-third of the total number of the global 5G base stations. And we also built the largest IPv6 barrier network, and built the world’s first 40-gigabit optical network. As for the AI computing capability, we built important and the largest, very powerful computability infrastructure. We already have 43 EFLOPs computing capacity, and we connected all the IDCs to provide cloud edge terminal computing power collaboration. As for the AI engine, China Mobile developed our in-house AI-powered enabled engine. We built our multi-modal large models, AI models, support large language model, and also a vision model, speech model, data model, which can be used in different scenarios. And importantly, we think we need to make our infrastructure a 5G AI capability to empower the industry’s transformation to digital intelligence. So actually, we have already developed. more than 50,000 5G user case to enhance the vertical industry like tourist, health care, manufacturing, power grid, smart city, education, etc. The gentleman from ITU just mentioned AI consume a lot of energy. But we think AI can also help the energy industry to save the energy. So we think it’s very important to use this technology to bring the green development. And for our daily life, China Mobile also worked with our partner to empower our smart digital life. For example, we developed 5G new calling capability. That is, when we’re doing a phone call, we can, for example, the caller in different country, you can experience the simultaneous translation. And so it’s very important and a very good service to our customer. We also developed our AI agent called Lingxi to do our customer service. And we also actually work with our partner to provide, we call it new three products for our customer. Before in China, every family need three important things. That is TV, refrigerator, and the washing machine. Now we think the new products is also very important for consumer service, that is AI-embedded device, the intelligent electronic vehicle and robots. So we worked with our partner to develop those kind of product to serve our customer. With the very promising development, we still see there’s a challenge. Here I’d like to share that Chen Mobile worked together with Omedia and the GTI. We do a research to analyze the, we call it, an index, we call it Mobile Intelligence Integration Index. This MI3 is to evaluate the level of the global mobile intelligence integrated development and offer reference and guidance to the relevant stakeholders. With this research, we found that the global, there is an even development for the digital infrastructure. So that is a global digital infrastructure gap. And we also noticed there’s insufficient integration of the AICT’s capability with vertical industry. The traditional vertical industry lack of the capability to integrate with the latest technology. And the third one, we think, is shortage of the AI talents. To tackle those challenges, we think a global cooperation open. and Global Cooperation is very important. So China Mobile actually participates in global organizations like ITU. We participate in the activities in ITU for AI for Good. We contribute our best practice to sharing our 5G AI user case. And we also participate in GSMA together with a telecom operator to promote the telecom authentic AI. And also for the GTI, actually China Mobile is the founder of GTI, which is also a global cooperation platform. We developed a program named 5G AI to promote the global cooperation for the technology innovation, the product innovation, and the service innovation for 5G times AI. We already developed many user cases and set up labs for the collaborative cooperation. And we also set up an international partnership. For example, we have a joint AI education initiative and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Framework to help to have more AI talent. We also set up a joint lab with a cinemas group that is in Indonesia to promote the AI service. So let’s just share some practice of our China Mobile promoting the latest technology and promoting the global cooperation to

Zhiqiang Lin: Thank you, Mr. Huang, your unique perspective from an enterprise offers a vivid example of how the new generation of ICT can empower our life and our product. Now let’s move to the second topic, Global Digital Governance Mechanism and International Cooperation. It’s our pleasure to invite Prof. Gong Ke, Executive Director of Chinese Institute of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Strategy, former President of World Federal of Engineering Organization, to share his insight. Welcome.

Ke Gong: Thank you. Thank you so much, Chair. Very good morning to all of you. On my behalf of the Special Task Force for Engineering Capacity Building for Africa program, to give you a concrete, tangible example on the international collaboration for the AI capacity building. So just one year ago in New York, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted a very, very important resolution, which is titled Enhancing the International Collaboration on Capacity Building of Artificial Intelligence. And later in the Global Compact of – Global Digital Compact, the GDC, the capacity building also stressed why the capacity building is so important, because the AI capacity gap We are a digital-plus engineering program. We leverage digital technology to plus various engineering profession practices. And we also try to embed the ethical principles into our courses so we can leverage technology for the African engineers to carry out digital transformation in an ethical way. So the purpose is to enhance the capacity in engineering education, to enhance the capacity of continuous professional development, and to enhance the capacity of engineering transfer or digital adoption. So we are going to set up some capacity-building centers in different parts of the African continent. And with this center, we mobilize the international experts, courses, tools, funds into African continent. So we have inaugurated this program early this year in Kenya. We have 50 engineers from workplaces, from the Kenya Power, Kenya Railway Station, Railway, and so on and so forth, more than 10 industrial companies. And they brought their own data by using the big fundamental model and to treat those data to make some predictions. So five full-day program attracted a lot of interest of engineers. And these are their feedbacks. So eye-opening, enlightening, engaging, exciting, and so on and so forth. What is we learned from the success of the inauguration, we call it the The pilot training is that first, there’s really the local need-based. So we call for participation, and they pay their fees to attend these courses. And also, they’re organized based, they’re locally organized. We work closely with the Institute of Engineers of Kenya together. They gather this workshop, and we got support from industry, from academia, from the universities. And also, we got support from international organizations. We used, we leveraged the convening power of UNESCO to do this. And also, we work with United Nations University. They are going to certificate our courses. So that’s a real application example for the international collaboration on engineering capacity building. So I just stop here. We look forward to working with all of you together to strengthen this effort to make this a great success for Africa and for the whole world. Thank you so much.

Zhiqiang Lin: Thank you, Professor. Now, next, let’s welcome Mr. Torbjörn Fredriksson, Head of the Economical and Digital Economy branch at the UN Trade and Development. Welcome.

Torbjorn Fredriksson: Thank you very much. In the interest of time, I think I will skip my prepared presentation and just make some reflections. I very much like the comments by Dr. Guri about speed and complexity. This speed, we can also get carried away by all these new things that are happening. And from our perspective, from the UN Conference on Trade and Development, our main concern is that we don’t lose track of those that are not at the frontier. It’s very much, as was said, stress that there is a high level of concentration. Where is this most exciting things happening? It’s not in Europe. I say it’s in China, in the U.S. And because of the speed and the complexity of what we’re seeing now, it’s also a tremendous challenge for governments in every country, I would say, to really keep track of what should we look at and what should we look at. Just to illustrate this complexity issue, we have recently presented our digital economy report where we looked at the interface between digitalization and environmental sustainability. And if you look at the just a simple thing, you would think as a phone. When we produce phones in the in the 60s, that lasted for many decades, of course, you needed 10 different elements from the periodic table. 10. By the first mobile phones at 1990, we used 27 elements. And in the smartphones that we are using today, you’re all sitting with it, it takes 63 elements from the periodic table. That’s more than half of all the components and elements that exist in the world for one smartphone. That just shows the complexity and also the artificial intelligence here. It is now anticipated that the energy consumption of data centers linked to AI development, especially the generative types of AI, will consume more electricity in the U.S. than all the energy intensive other industries taken together, like cement, steel, and so on and so forth. The challenge is what do we do about that? Because as this is happening, we have a very strong tendency of looking at the potential opportunities that all this AI, blockchain, and other technologies can bring. How do we give equal attention to the potential downsides of this, so that when we finally get to come together and govern what’s happening, it’s not too soon. Right now, we’re seeing the combination of digitalization and the need to shift to more green technologies, more renewable energies and so on and so forth. It’s creating tremendous demand for certain critical minerals, so much so that some of these, especially the platinum group, they’re expected to be 500 times more in 2060. It’s a big question mark. Can we get these minerals and metals to continue this, to sustain this, without sacrificing the world? In fact, you can see a good illustration of this by looking at the interest from governments and from companies to start mining in the deep seas, because they are worried that they can’t find it on the Earth’s crust. And the strong interest in mining outer space. All of this creates tremendous governance challenges, because it’s not clearly defined who controls these parts, who will take care of the potential downside, the increasing space waste, and so on and so forth. But at this time, I will just say that the issue of governance is so important, and I fully, strongly agree with the need for international efforts, because this is not for individual countries to manage, and the need also for having more international cooperation. I cannot help ending my remarks with a comparison here. We have six companies, all American, leading in terms of value in the world. These six companies, they are worth almost $17 trillion, trillion dollars in market capitalization value. Let’s compare that. That’s six times more than the total value of the African continent’s GDP, and it is 57 times more than all the official development standards. assistance by all the OECD countries. Surely, we must be able to secure more funding to create an inclusive digital economy to help those countries that are lagging behind to build the capabilities, the infrastructure, and the governance that is needed to make it a good world. Thank you very much.

Zhiqiang Lin: Thank you, Mr. for the full direction. Now, let’s invite Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Prof. Emeritus of University of Aarhus, Denmark. Welcome.

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter: Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you very much. I see we are running out of time, and so I will be very brief. Thank you for the invitation. My presentation fits directly to what Torbjörn has just said, because as an academic person, we are dealing with definitions. This leads to the definition what we understand under digital governance in the digital future. We have now a confusing number of different terminologies. We are speaking about artificial governance. I was in a workshop the day before yesterday on quantum governance. I was involved 20 years ago. This is a plus 20 event here when we defined internet governance. I think we should clarify what is our understanding of governance in the digital age and why we will see a proliferation of terminologies like digital cyber governance, data governance. We have now a working group on data governance in the UNCSTD. We should remember the basics. I was a member. of the United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance, which had a mandate from the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, 20 years ago to define internet governance. And we had a difficult time to agree on a narrow definition or a broad definition. We decided in favor of a broad definition, which was then adopted by the 193 member states in the Tunis Summit on the World Information Society. And this broad definition has three elements, which in my eyes are very relevant for all forms of governance in the digital age, including AI governance, digital governance, quantum governance, cyber governance, or data governance. So the first element is that it says, you know, if you come to governance mechanism, you have to involve all stakeholders. So the mighty stakeholder approach is important. The second element was, so internet governance has to be based on shared principle norms, programs, and decision-making procedures. So that is the collaborative approach. You have to work together and to share. I think this is the sharing and the collaborative approach. And the third element was we referred to the evolution and the use of the internet that is the technical and the application layer. We all know the internet is a layered system. And so what you need is to have a holistic approach, which includes not only the technical aspects, but also the policy applications in particular consequences for internet related public policy issues. So, and I think this three elements, the mighty stakeholder approach, the collaborative approach, and the holistic approach is very relevant for digital governance, for AI governance, and as a form of governance in the digital age. To clarify this, This issue is important if we move to regulation. I will not go deeper in the challenges which are coming with regulation, because in particular in the field of AI, we see also a huge debate how far we should go with regulation. One speaker has mentioned the conflict between regulation and innovation, how we can settle this. My recommendation also for the new AI bodies in the context of the United Nations, the AI panel and the AI dialogue, is not to look for a legally binding instrument on the global level, but for something like an AI declaration, which could be adopted in 2027, when the first GDC review and the IGF review is on the table. Legally binding instruments are probably good for the local level and the regional level, as we have seen in the European context or in the Council of Europe context, which have also a legally binding document. But on the UN level, it’s probably better to work towards political frameworks, as we have from the UNESCO, the AI recommendation on ethics. And if the United Nations want to do something, then probably a general declaration, a universal declaration on AI, which is based on the OECD principles from 2019, could be a step forward. Thank you very much for your attention.

Zhiqiang Lin: Thank you, Professor Koller-Wurz. Now let’s invite Professor Prof. Luca Belli, Director of the CyberBRICS Project at FIDACO, Titolio, Vegas, Brazil, to share his insights with the video.

Luca Belli: Good morning, and thank you very much. for having invited me to this session on Strengthen Digital Governance and International Cooperation to Build an Inclusive Digital Future. I think this is an excellent topic, a very timely topic. I would like to salute the initiative of the Chinese Academy for Cyberspace Studies for organizing this session. My name is Luca Belli, I’m a professor here at FGV Law School where I direct the Center for Technology and Society and also the CyberBRICS project that has been mapping the digital policies of the BRICS groupings, so Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and then the six new groupings, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and how this grouping has facilitated what in internet governance vernacular we can call enhanced cooperation to solve digital matters, right? So I think that over the past 10 years especially we have seen the BRICS playing a very important role as a club governance mechanism that facilitates cooperation amongst member states and also recently together also with the associate countries, the partner countries, an increasing number of these countries coming from the global south. And I think that it really it is really interesting to pay attention to BRICS dynamic precisely because this is the only club governance mechanism that facilitates interaction amongst global south leaders and with the aim to then create policy suggestions and articulate support for those policy suggestions to propose them at the International level, especially at the UN level, being the UN the only organization that is recognized as the appropriate venue, the appropriate forum, to discuss international digital policies and have them implemented into concrete output. And let me give you a very, very interesting example. A case in point of this cooperation is the very recent adoption of the Convention against Cybercrime, which has been lobbied intensely by several BRICS members, brokered also with the very important help of Brazilian diplomacy that played a key role into this. And the result has been the adoption of the first global treaty on digital matters, quintessentially lobbied for and created by global South leaders. Now, of course, as any treaty, this can be criticized, but it is a very interesting example of why paying attention to BRICS dynamics is very important. It has become actually key in internet policy and digital policy matters. A very interesting evolution that also has been witnessed by our research on data governance and cybersecurity has been also the recent commitment since the Kazan Declaration in 2024 to create a global data framework that facilitates legal interoperability amongst different policy frameworks that are already existing at the national level in the BRICS group. So these are only a few examples of how the BRICS can play a very important role, is already playing actually a very important role in facilitating dialogue, also creating a sort of policy incubator. where then solutions that are conceived in the Global South by global majority leaders can then be brought at the international level and adopted. And I think that a very important way also to witness this is the choice of the Brazilian presidency of the BRICS grouping that has chosen for 2025, the year of the presidency, the team is strengthening Global South cooperation for more inclusive and sustainable governance. And this really witnessed the intention of the grouping and especially this year under the Brazilian chairmanship to intensely lobby for a more inclusive and sustainable governance including in regards to digital matters. Thank you very much for having me and I wish you an excellent conference. Bye-bye.

Zhiqiang Lin: Thanks for a very time flat. We have to end the forum. Thank all the judges and the colleges for their wisdom and efforts contributed to this forum. Also, we need to appreciate the high-level event secretaries for providing us with a great platform for exchanges. Thank you for your participation. Let’s end. Thank you.

Agreement points

International cooperation is essential for effective digital governance

Speakers

– Francis Gurry
– Wolfgang Kleinwaechter
– Luca Belli
– Thomas Basikolo
– Jiang Bai
– Zhiqiang Lin

Arguments

International cooperation crucial when governments avoid disadvantaging their own economic actors through regulation

Need for multistakeholder approach, collaborative mechanisms, and holistic governance covering technical and policy layers

BRICS serves as important club governance mechanism facilitating Global South cooperation on digital policies

Need for AI readiness frameworks to help countries prepare for digital transformation

Enhanced mutual trust, dialogue, and multilateral participation essential for addressing security risks

WSIS Plus 20 Forum aims to strengthen digital governance and international cooperation for inclusive digital future

Summary

All speakers emphasized that digital governance challenges are too complex and global in nature to be addressed by individual countries alone, requiring coordinated international cooperation, multilateral approaches, and collaborative frameworks involving multiple stakeholders.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Capacity development

Digital technologies must serve inclusive development and bridge digital divides

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Jiang Bai
– Yuhong Huang
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

AI for Good platform demonstrates how technology can address societal challenges through cross-sector collaboration

Need for innovation, openness, and global sharing of AI research to ensure digital dividends benefit all humanity

Over 50,000 5G use cases developed across vertical industries like healthcare, manufacturing, and smart cities

Six major tech companies worth $17 trillion highlight concentration of digital power and need for inclusive development

Summary

Speakers agreed that digital technologies should be developed and deployed to ensure inclusive benefits for all, particularly addressing the needs of developing countries and marginalized communities, rather than concentrating benefits among a few major players.

Topics

Development | Digital access | Economic

Speed and complexity of technological change create significant governance challenges

Speakers

– Francis Gurry
– Wolfgang Kleinwaechter
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

Speed and complexity of technology are creating governance challenges, with traditional institutions struggling to keep pace with rapid innovation

Need for multistakeholder approach, collaborative mechanisms, and holistic governance covering technical and policy layers

Modern smartphones require 63 elements from periodic table, showing increasing complexity and resource demands

Summary

Speakers acknowledged that the rapid pace of technological innovation and increasing complexity of digital systems are outpacing traditional governance mechanisms, requiring new approaches to regulation and oversight.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the challenges of traditional regulatory approaches in addressing rapidly evolving technologies and suggested more flexible, collaborative governance frameworks rather than rigid legal instruments at the global level.

Speakers

– Francis Gurry
– Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

Arguments

Growing lag between technology adoption and legislative response creates regulatory voids and inadequate frameworks

Preference for political frameworks like AI declarations over legally binding instruments at global level

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Both speakers highlighted successful examples of capacity building programs that support local talent development in developing countries, particularly in Africa, through international collaboration and practical training initiatives.

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Ke Gong

Arguments

Projects like Innovate for Impact and Innovation Factory support local talent and entrepreneurship in developing countries

Engineering capacity building programs in Africa show successful model for international AI collaboration

Topics

Development | Capacity development | Online education

Both speakers acknowledged the significant environmental challenges posed by digital technologies, including energy consumption, e-waste, and resource depletion, emphasizing the need for sustainable approaches to digital development.

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

Green Digital Action and environmental standards needed to address e-waste and emissions from digital technologies

AI data centers expected to consume more electricity than all energy-intensive industries combined in the US

Critical mineral demands may increase 500 times by 2060, raising questions about sustainable technology development

Topics

Development | Sustainable development | E-waste

Unexpected consensus

Environmental sustainability concerns in digital development

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Torbjorn Fredriksson
– Yuhong Huang

Arguments

Green Digital Action and environmental standards needed to address e-waste and emissions from digital technologies

AI data centers expected to consume more electricity than all energy-intensive industries combined in the US

Global digital infrastructure gaps and insufficient integration with traditional industries remain major challenges

Explanation

Despite the forum’s focus on promoting digital technologies and AI development, there was unexpected consensus among speakers about the serious environmental challenges posed by digital technologies. This suggests a mature understanding that technological advancement must be balanced with sustainability concerns.

Topics

Development | Sustainable development | Infrastructure

Global South leadership in digital governance

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Ke Gong
– Jiang Bai

Arguments

BRICS successfully lobbied for first global cybercrime treaty, demonstrating Global South leadership in digital governance

Engineering capacity building programs in Africa show successful model for international AI collaboration

Need for innovation, openness, and global sharing of AI research to ensure digital dividends benefit all humanity

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the importance of Global South leadership and participation in digital governance, moving beyond traditional North-South dynamics to recognize emerging economies as key drivers of digital policy innovation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Capacity development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the need for international cooperation in digital governance, the importance of inclusive development that bridges digital divides, and the recognition that technological complexity requires new governance approaches. There was also unexpected agreement on environmental sustainability concerns and the value of Global South leadership in digital policy.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for digital governance policy. The agreement suggests a mature understanding that digital transformation requires collaborative, inclusive, and sustainable approaches rather than purely technology-driven solutions. This consensus could facilitate more effective international cooperation and policy coordination in digital governance initiatives.

Different viewpoints

Approach to AI regulation – legally binding vs political frameworks

Speakers

– Francis Gurry
– Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

Arguments

International cooperation crucial when governments avoid disadvantaging their own economic actors through regulation

Preference for political frameworks like AI declarations over legally binding instruments at global level

Summary

Gurry emphasizes the need for international cooperation to address regulatory gaps and prevent governments from avoiding regulation to protect domestic companies, while Kleinwaechter specifically advocates against legally binding instruments at the global level, preferring political frameworks and declarations instead.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Focus on positive applications vs environmental concerns of digital technologies

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

AI for Good platform demonstrates how technology can address societal challenges through cross-sector collaboration

AI data centers expected to consume more electricity than all energy-intensive industries combined in the US

Summary

Basikolo emphasizes the positive applications of AI through the AI for Good platform and cross-sector collaboration for societal benefits, while Fredriksson focuses heavily on the environmental costs and unsustainable resource consumption of digital technologies, particularly AI’s massive energy demands.

Topics

Development | Sustainable development

Infrastructure development priorities – building capacity vs addressing concentration

Speakers

– Yuhong Huang
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

China Mobile built world’s largest 5G network and AI computing infrastructure to enable AICT development

Six major tech companies worth $17 trillion highlight concentration of digital power and need for inclusive development

Summary

Huang focuses on building massive infrastructure and expanding 5G/AI capabilities as solutions to digital development challenges, while Fredriksson emphasizes the problematic concentration of digital wealth and power, arguing for more inclusive distribution rather than just infrastructure expansion.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Unexpected differences

Role of large infrastructure development in addressing digital divides

Speakers

– Yuhong Huang
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

Over 50,000 5G use cases developed across vertical industries like healthcare, manufacturing, and smart cities

Six major tech companies worth $17 trillion highlight concentration of digital power and need for inclusive development

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are addressing digital inclusion, but from completely opposite perspectives. Huang presents massive infrastructure development and use case expansion as the solution, while Fredriksson argues that the concentration of digital wealth and power is the fundamental problem that infrastructure expansion alone cannot solve.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Emphasis on technical solutions vs governance frameworks for AI challenges

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

Arguments

Projects like Innovate for Impact and Innovation Factory support local talent and entrepreneurship in developing countries

Need for multistakeholder approach, collaborative mechanisms, and holistic governance covering technical and policy layers

Explanation

While both speakers address AI governance, Basikolo focuses heavily on technical capacity building and project implementation as solutions, while Kleinwaechter emphasizes the need for proper governance frameworks and definitions. This represents an unexpected divide between technical implementation versus governance structure approaches.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Capacity development

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center around regulatory approaches (binding vs political frameworks), the balance between promoting digital innovation and addressing environmental/concentration concerns, and whether technical infrastructure development or governance reform should be prioritized.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. While speakers share common goals of inclusive digital governance and international cooperation, their different approaches could lead to conflicting policy recommendations. The disagreements reflect broader tensions between developed and developing country perspectives, technical versus governance-focused solutions, and optimistic versus cautious approaches to digital transformation.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the challenges of traditional regulatory approaches in addressing rapidly evolving technologies and suggested more flexible, collaborative governance frameworks rather than rigid legal instruments at the global level.

Speakers

– Francis Gurry
– Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

Arguments

Growing lag between technology adoption and legislative response creates regulatory voids and inadequate frameworks

Preference for political frameworks like AI declarations over legally binding instruments at global level

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Both speakers highlighted successful examples of capacity building programs that support local talent development in developing countries, particularly in Africa, through international collaboration and practical training initiatives.

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Ke Gong

Arguments

Projects like Innovate for Impact and Innovation Factory support local talent and entrepreneurship in developing countries

Engineering capacity building programs in Africa show successful model for international AI collaboration

Topics

Development | Capacity development | Online education

Both speakers acknowledged the significant environmental challenges posed by digital technologies, including energy consumption, e-waste, and resource depletion, emphasizing the need for sustainable approaches to digital development.

Speakers

– Thomas Basikolo
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

Green Digital Action and environmental standards needed to address e-waste and emissions from digital technologies

AI data centers expected to consume more electricity than all energy-intensive industries combined in the US

Critical mineral demands may increase 500 times by 2060, raising questions about sustainable technology development

Topics

Development | Sustainable development | E-waste

Key takeaways

Digital governance faces unprecedented challenges due to the speed and complexity of emerging technologies, with traditional institutions struggling to keep pace with rapid innovation cycles

International cooperation and multistakeholder approaches are essential for effective digital governance, as individual countries cannot manage these challenges alone

AI and emerging technologies offer significant potential for addressing global challenges through initiatives like AI for Good, but require careful balance between innovation and traditional societal values

Global South countries, particularly through mechanisms like BRICS, are playing increasingly important leadership roles in shaping international digital policies and governance frameworks

Digital infrastructure gaps and capacity building remain critical barriers to inclusive digital development, requiring targeted international collaboration and investment

Environmental sustainability concerns are growing as digital technologies consume increasing amounts of energy and resources, with AI data centers expected to consume more electricity than traditional energy-intensive industries

The concentration of digital power in a few major tech companies (worth $17 trillion combined) highlights the urgent need for more inclusive and equitable digital development approaches

Resolutions and action items

Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies will host forums at the 2025 World Internet Conference Wuzhen Summit with global think tanks contributing papers on building communities with shared future in cyberspace

Release of the 9th annual World Internet Development Report presenting latest achievements on global internet development and governance

Continuation of AI for Good initiatives including Innovate for Impact and Innovation Factory projects to support developing countries

Expansion of engineering capacity building programs in Africa following successful pilot in Kenya

Development of AI readiness frameworks to help countries prepare for digital transformation

BRICS commitment to create a global data framework for legal interoperability among member states under Brazilian presidency in 2025

Unresolved issues

The fundamental tension between innovation and regulation remains unaddressed, with no clear framework for balancing technological advancement with necessary governance

How to address the growing lag between technology adoption and legislative response, particularly for radical new technologies without existing regulatory frameworks

The question of whether AI training on copyrighted data is lawful, with 46 ongoing lawsuits in the US and bitter divisions between tech and cultural communities

How to ensure sustainable development of digital technologies given the massive increase in critical mineral demands (potentially 500 times more by 2060)

The challenge of preventing marginalized communities, particularly in rural and low-income areas, from being excluded from digital innovation benefits

How to address the concentration of digital power and ensure more equitable distribution of digital dividends globally

The lack of sufficient funding for inclusive digital economy development, despite the massive market capitalization of leading tech companies

Suggested compromises

Preference for political frameworks like AI declarations over legally binding instruments at the global level, while maintaining legally binding documents at regional levels

Focus on collaborative approaches with shared principles, norms, and decision-making procedures rather than top-down regulatory frameworks

Emphasis on multistakeholder governance involving governments, international organizations, businesses, academia, and civil society rather than government-only approaches

Balance between promoting innovation and preserving traditional societal values, such as cultural creation and intellectual property rights

Combination of global cooperation with local needs-based and locally organized capacity building programs

Integration of environmental sustainability considerations into digital development through initiatives like Green Digital Action while continuing technological advancement

Speed and complexity of contemporary technology are complicating the task of governance… Netflix took three and a half years to reach 1 million users in 1999. It took Facebook 13 months to reach 1 million users in 2004, and it took ChatGPT three days to reach 1 million users in 2022.

Speaker

Francis Gurry

Reason

This comment provides a concrete, quantifiable framework for understanding the governance challenge. By using specific adoption timelines, Gurry transforms abstract concepts of ‘speed’ and ‘complexity’ into tangible metrics that demonstrate the exponential acceleration of technology adoption. This creates a compelling narrative that helps explain why traditional governance structures are struggling.

Impact

This comment established the foundational challenge that subsequent speakers built upon. It shifted the discussion from general observations about digital governance to specific, measurable problems. Later speakers like Torbjörn Fredriksson referenced similar themes about speed and complexity, and Thomas Basikolo acknowledged the challenge of regulation keeping pace with innovation.

These six companies [leading American tech companies] are worth almost $17 trillion… That’s six times more than the total value of the African continent’s GDP, and it is 57 times more than all the official development assistance by all the OECD countries.

Speaker

Torbjörn Fredriksson

Reason

This stark comparison provides a powerful illustration of global digital inequality and concentration of power. By juxtaposing the market value of six companies against entire continents and international aid budgets, Fredriksson quantifies the scale of digital divide in economic terms that are impossible to ignore.

Impact

This comment fundamentally reframed the discussion from technical governance challenges to questions of global equity and power distribution. It provided concrete context for why international cooperation and inclusive governance are not just idealistic goals but urgent necessities. The comment elevated the stakes of the entire discussion.

In the smartphones that we are using today… it takes 63 elements from the periodic table. That’s more than half of all the components and elements that exist in the world for one smartphone… AI development will consume more electricity in the U.S. than all the energy intensive other industries taken together.

Speaker

Torbjörn Fredriksson

Reason

This comment brilliantly illustrates the hidden complexity and environmental cost of digital technologies through concrete, relatable examples. By connecting everyday devices to fundamental chemistry and comparing AI energy consumption to entire industrial sectors, it makes abstract sustainability concerns tangible and urgent.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from viewing technology as primarily beneficial to acknowledging serious environmental and resource constraints. It added a critical sustainability dimension that other speakers had not fully addressed, forcing consideration of whether current digital development trajectories are sustainable.

We should clarify what is our understanding of governance in the digital age… the broad definition has three elements… the multi-stakeholder approach, the collaborative approach, and the holistic approach.

Speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

Reason

As someone who helped define internet governance 20 years ago, Kleinwaechter provides historical perspective and definitional clarity to a discussion that had been using ‘governance’ in various ways. His three-element framework offers a structured approach to understanding digital governance that transcends specific technologies.

Impact

This comment provided conceptual grounding for the entire discussion. By offering a clear definitional framework rooted in UN precedent, it gave other participants and future discussions a common vocabulary and structure for approaching digital governance challenges across different technologies and contexts.

AI can also help the energy industry to save the energy. So we think it’s very important to use this technology to bring the green development.

Speaker

Yuhong Huang

Reason

This comment provides a crucial counterpoint to concerns about AI’s energy consumption by highlighting AI’s potential to optimize energy use across other sectors. It demonstrates the complexity of technology impact assessment and the need for holistic rather than narrow evaluations.

Impact

This comment introduced nuance to the sustainability discussion, preventing it from becoming one-sidedly negative about AI’s environmental impact. It encouraged a more balanced view of technology’s environmental effects and highlighted the importance of net impact analysis rather than focusing solely on direct consumption.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by providing concrete frameworks for understanding abstract challenges. Gurry’s speed/complexity framework established the core governance challenge, while Fredriksson’s economic comparisons and environmental data quantified the stakes and urgency. Kleinwaechter’s definitional framework provided conceptual structure, and Huang’s energy counterpoint added necessary nuance. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from general observations to specific, measurable challenges with clear implications for policy and international cooperation. They created a progression from identifying problems (speed, complexity) to quantifying stakes (inequality, environmental impact) to providing solutions frameworks (multi-stakeholder governance). The discussion became more sophisticated and actionable as a result of these interventions.

How can we measure the pace of technological innovation more effectively?

Speaker

Francis Gurry

Explanation

Gurry noted that while we know the pace of innovation is quickening from our daily lives, ‘we don’t really have a good measure of it,’ indicating a need for better metrics to quantify technological advancement speed.

How can international coordination address the regulatory lag between technology emergence and government response?

Speaker

Francis Gurry

Explanation

Gurry identified the growing lag between new technology adoption and legislative response as a major governance challenge, suggesting this is ‘the classic case for international intervention.’

How can governments balance innovation promotion with protecting traditional societal values?

Speaker

Francis Gurry

Explanation

Gurry emphasized the need to find ‘appropriate balance between the interests of innovation’ and ‘not to ignore some of the traditional values of society,’ using the example of AI training on copyrighted data.

How can AI energy consumption be balanced with environmental sustainability goals?

Speaker

Thomas Basikolo and Torbjörn Fredriksson

Explanation

Both speakers raised concerns about AI’s energy consumption, with Fredriksson noting that AI data centers may consume more electricity than all energy-intensive industries combined, requiring research into sustainable solutions.

How can we ensure adequate supply of critical minerals for digital technology without environmental sacrifice?

Speaker

Torbjörn Fredriksson

Explanation

Fredriksson highlighted that demand for critical minerals could increase 500 times by 2060, raising questions about sustainable sourcing and whether we can ‘get these minerals and metals without sacrificing the world.’

How can we develop clearer definitions and frameworks for different types of digital governance?

Speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

Explanation

Kleinwaechter noted the ‘confusing number of different terminologies’ in digital governance and emphasized the need to ‘clarify what is our understanding of governance in the digital age.’

What is the optimal approach for AI regulation at different governance levels (local, regional, global)?

Speaker

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

Explanation

Kleinwaechter suggested different regulatory approaches for different levels, recommending political frameworks rather than legally binding instruments at the UN level, which requires further research and discussion.

How can Global South countries better participate in and influence international digital governance?

Speaker

Luca Belli

Explanation

Belli highlighted BRICS as an example of Global South cooperation in digital policy, suggesting the need for more research on how to enhance inclusive governance mechanisms that give voice to global majority leaders.

How can we address the global digital infrastructure gap more effectively?

Speaker

Yuhong Huang

Explanation

Huang identified ‘uneven development for the digital infrastructure’ as a key challenge through their Mobile Intelligence Integration Index research, indicating need for solutions to bridge this gap.

How can we better integrate AI capabilities with traditional vertical industries?

Speaker

Yuhong Huang

Explanation

Huang noted ‘insufficient integration of the AICT’s capability with vertical industry’ and that ‘traditional vertical industry lack of the capability to integrate with the latest technology,’ requiring further research on integration strategies.

Summary

This transcript captures the closing ceremony of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 2025, a major international conference focused on global digital cooperation and development. ITU Secretary-General Doreen Bogdan-Martin opened the session by highlighting the week’s remarkable success, noting over 11,000 physical participants from 169 countries and the concurrent AI for Good Global Summit that brought together development and AI communities. She emphasized three key achievements: the WSIS community’s role as ecosystem builders ready to implement agile regulatory frameworks, the platform’s readiness to address AI era challenges with nearly 1,000 prize submissions showcasing innovative solutions, and the community’s commitment to shaping the future beyond 2025.

Chair Minister Solly Malatsi, participating virtually from South Africa, acknowledged the widespread support for continuing the WSIS architecture beyond 2025 while emphasizing the need for evolution toward greater inclusivity, equity, and sustainability. He stressed that true inclusion means meeting stakeholders where they need to be met, not merely opening doors, and called for refining the WSIS action lines to better measure progress in the evolving digital landscape. The session featured interventions from various stakeholders, including Malaysia highlighting their digital inclusion projects, representatives advocating for children’s rights in the digital age, and calls for addressing power concentration in the digital sphere.

The ceremony concluded with expressions of gratitude to organizers and commitment to continuing the WSIS mission of ensuring everyone can thrive in the digital era, setting the stage for the UN General Assembly’s 20-year review in December.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS Evolution and Future Direction**: The discussion centered on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) completing 20 years and preparing for its next phase beyond 2025, with emphasis on making the process more agile, efficient, and inclusive while avoiding duplication of mandates.

– **Digital Inclusion and Accessibility**: Multiple speakers emphasized the critical need to bridge digital gaps, ensure no one is left behind in technological advancement, and make digital devices more affordable while strengthening cybersecurity and digital resilience globally.

– **AI Integration and Governance**: The conversation highlighted that we are currently in an AI revolution (not approaching one), with discussions on integrating AI responsibly into digital development, establishing trust and transparency frameworks, and addressing the concentration of power in the digital sphere.

– **Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Capacity Building**: Strong emphasis on maintaining and enhancing the multi-stakeholder approach that defines WSIS, with calls for better teacher training, upskilling of lawmakers, and investment in institutional capacities of underrepresented groups.

– **Children’s Rights and Data Protection**: Specific focus on making children central to digital conversations, protecting children’s data rights, and ensuring their voices are heard as both current actors and future stakeholders in the digital landscape.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion served as a closing ceremony and reflection session for the WSIS+20 High-Level Event 2025, aimed at celebrating achievements over the past 20 years while charting the course for future global digital cooperation. The primary goal was to gather stakeholder input and commitments for the upcoming UN General Assembly review in December and to ensure the WSIS process remains relevant and effective in addressing contemporary digital challenges.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently positive and celebratory tone throughout, characterized by gratitude, accomplishment, and forward-looking optimism. Speakers expressed appreciation for the week’s achievements, congratulated organizers and participants, and demonstrated enthusiasm for continued collaboration. While some concerns were raised about power concentration and resource constraints, these were presented constructively rather than critically. The tone remained energetic and hopeful from beginning to end, with the final speaker describing feeling “energized, charged, and hopeful,” which encapsulated the overall atmosphere of the discussion.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Doreen Bogdan Martin** – Secretary General of the ITU (International Telecommunication Union)

– **Solly Malatsi** – Chair, Minister, His Excellency (joined virtually from South Africa)

– **Gitanjali Sah** – ITU team member, led the WSIS process

– **Malaysia representative** – Representative from Malaysia

– **Panelist (Ethic minds and Multilateral Group)** – Christine Hausel, representing Ethic Minds Institute and Multilateral Group, focused on children’s rights and data protection

– **World Summit Award representative** – Professor Bruck, representing World Summit Award and social impact entrepreneurs globally

– **AFIP President** – Anthony Wong, President of AFIP (founded by UNESCO in 1960)

– **Panelist 1** – Jennifer, from Taking It Global, focused on education and teacher training

– **Saudi Arabia** – Representative from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (gold partner)

– **Ambassador of Bolivia** – Ambassador representing Bolivia, focused on human rights perspective in technology

– **Abdulkarim Oloyede** – High-level track facilitator

– **Jimson Olufuye** – Representative from Abuja, Nigeria

– **Panelist 2** – Damit, representing IFIF from Sri Lanka

**Additional speakers:**

– None identified beyond the provided speakers names list

# WSIS+20 High-Level Event 2025: Closing Ceremony – Summary

## Executive Overview

The closing ceremony of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 2025 brought together over 11,000 physical participants from 169 countries alongside the concurrent AI for Good Global Summit. The session celebrated two decades of WSIS achievements while addressing future directions for international digital governance beyond 2025. Participants expressed widespread support for continuing the WSIS process while identifying key areas for improvement and evolution.

## Opening Remarks and Summit Achievements

ITU Secretary-General Doreen Bogdan-Martin highlighted three key achievements of WSIS 2025. First, the WSIS community has evolved into ecosystem builders ready to implement agile regulatory frameworks. Second, the platform demonstrates readiness to tackle AI era challenges, supported by nearly 1,000 prize submissions showcasing innovative solutions for government services, cybercrime prevention, and healthcare delivery to underserved communities. Third, the community shows commitment to shaping the digital future beyond 2025, with the Partner to Connect Digital Coalition achieving over $76 billion in pledges, reaching two-thirds of the $100 billion goal by 2026.

Bogdan-Martin emphasized that the global community is not approaching an AI revolution but is already immersed in it, highlighting the urgent need for trust and transparency frameworks in digital governance.

## Leadership Perspectives on Future Direction

Chair Minister Solly Malatsi, participating virtually from South Africa, acknowledged widespread support for continuing the WSIS architecture beyond 2025 while emphasizing the need for more meaningful inclusivity. He cautioned: “We must be careful about prematurely congratulating ourselves for being inclusive. Inclusion means more than merely opening doors. It means that we must meet our stakeholders where they need to be met, and where we think they need to be met.”

Malatsi outlined priorities for WSIS evolution including making the process more agile and efficient, integrating the Global Digital Compact to reduce redundancy, and refining WSIS action lines to enable clear measurement of progress. He emphasized the need for investment in institutional and human capacities of underrepresented groups rather than superficial engagement.

## Stakeholder Interventions

Malaysia’s representative demonstrated concrete commitment through flagship projects Nadi and Stingray 2, which have reached nearly two million lives, positioning digital inclusion as a fundamental right. Malaysia reaffirmed its commitment as an ITU Council member and announced its intention to seek re-election for 2027-2030.

Christine Hausel from Ethic minds and Multilateral Group emphasized positioning children as current stakeholders rather than future beneficiaries in digital conversations. She highlighted that children possess valuable data and rights to that data, with technical solutions available for protection, ownership, and potential revenue generation.

Jennifer from Taking IT Global shared a concerning observation: “I really saw yesterday, there was a student that said, my teachers are against AI, so I’m learning these tools on my own. And that is a great tragedy if kids are just learning everything on their own.” She emphasized the need for significant investment in teacher training and upskilling, and highlighted the importance of citizen awareness of international commitments, noting that “citizens need to know that there is action and that they need to be part of that reporting process.”

## Addressing Structural Challenges

Professor Bruck from the World Summit Award highlighted resource and governance challenges: “We are facing today an unprecedented situation in terms of, on the one hand, concentration of power in the digital sphere, and on the other hand, an underfunding of the UN and the UN system in terms of regulation, and also in terms of standards and also governance building.”

The Ambassador of Bolivia emphasized the need to address technology governance challenges particularly affecting vulnerable populations, including indigenous peoples and peasants. A representative noted the importance of ensuring that “in the race for innovation, don’t forget us.”

## Regional and National Implementation

Jimson Olufuye from Nigeria expressed enthusiasm for replicating WSIS success at national levels, describing the event as “mind-blowing and fantastic” and calling for similar events through UN Regional Commissions.

The discussion revealed significant interest in extending WSIS impact beyond the global level, with emphasis on national multi-stakeholder action reporting dialogues as mechanisms for ensuring accountability and combating public cynicism about international commitments.

## Partnership Commitments

Saudi Arabia, as a gold partner, committed to continuing the WSIS journey and extended invitations to participate in the Global Symposium for Regulators in Riyadh. Anthony Wong, President of AFIP, emphasized his organization’s continued readiness to assist, noting their involvement with WSIS since 2012.

The Partner to Connect Digital Coalition’s achievement of over $76 billion in pledges represented a significant milestone in global connectivity efforts, demonstrating substantial financial mobilization for digital development.

## Technology Integration and Emerging Challenges

The discussion addressed integration of emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, into existing digital governance frameworks. WSIS Prize submissions demonstrated practical applications of AI in improving government services, fighting cybercrime, and delivering healthcare to underserved communities.

Participants acknowledged the complexity of emerging technological challenges, including quantum computing alongside AI, and the need for governance frameworks that can adapt to rapidly evolving technological landscapes. The gap between technological advancement and institutional preparedness was identified as a critical concern requiring immediate attention.

## Future Directions and Next Steps

The Chair committed to submitting the chair’s summary to the UN General Assembly to anchor the collective vision in broader digital community understanding. Participants agreed to continue leveraging the WSIS process for Global Digital Compact follow-up while exploring ways to refine action lines for better progress measurement.

Key unresolved challenges include addressing concentration of power in the digital sphere while the UN system faces funding constraints, developing specific mechanisms for meaningful participation of vulnerable populations, and implementing technical solutions for protecting children’s data rights while enabling their ownership and potential revenue generation.

## Conclusion

The WSIS+20 High-Level Event 2025 closing ceremony successfully celebrated achievements while identifying areas for improvement. Participants demonstrated strong consensus on continuing the WSIS process beyond 2025, with emphasis on making it more inclusive, efficient, and responsive to emerging technological challenges.

The ceremony established clear momentum for the UN General Assembly’s 20-year review in December, with widespread support for evolution rather than revolution in the WSIS approach. The focus on action over rhetoric, accountability over promises, and meaningful inclusion over participation metrics provides a foundation for future development of global digital cooperation frameworks.

Doreen Bogdan Martin: Good afternoon, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. To our Chair, Minister Solly Malatsi, what an incredible WSIS week this has been. I am so moved by the energy and the determination that I still feel in this room, despite the fact that it’s been five days and some of you are still smiling, so it’s great to feel that energy and feel that determination. I’m also moved by the active participation that we saw throughout this week, which was taking place alongside the AI for Good Global Summit, which was a great way to bring the two communities together, bringing the development community with the global AI community. We actually saw, walking through these halls this week, more than 11,000 physical participants from 169 countries. And of course, we had many more online. From the vision set out in Tunis and Geneva to the action lines that guide the Global Digital Compact, the WSIS has grown into a cornerstone of global digital cooperation, having engaged stakeholders around the globe since its very inception. Today, the WSIS tent is bigger than ever before, and we’re proud to have welcomed representatives, as I said, from nearly 170 countries, including over 100 ministers and regulators. And there’s always room to have more in the future as we look to continue to deepen our multi-stakeholder collaboration, which is at the very heart of our mission. With the 20-year review just around the corner, and I want to again recognize and thank our co-facilitators for being with us this week. With that review just around the corner, I think the time has come to look ahead. Look ahead and ask, what’s next for WSIS? I’d like to share a few highlights from this week that show where WSIS is headed and where we’re going in terms of future digital development. And I think it’s fair to say that the future of digital development is actually very bright. So first, I think this week has shown that we are ecosystem builders. Regulators are ready to put in place agile regulatory frameworks that are enabling and also ready to translate national digital transformation priorities into development opportunities for all. Ministers from around the world have recognized the need to make access to digital devices more affordable, to strengthen cybersecurity and digital resilience, and to expand digital inclusion, ensuring that no one is left behind, no matter how fast technology races ahead. Parliamentarians recognize that they no longer can be passive observers of technology, and upskilling is non-negotiable, as they have called it for lawmakers, to maximize benefits and also to ensure that we minimize possible risks coming about in terms of our digital future. We also had our UN leaders with us this week, and many of them are still here, our UN partners that will join me up on stage as well. And they also reminded us that we are not on the cusp of an AI revolution, we’re actually in it right now, today. The WSIS community uplifts other ecosystems, joining the Partner to Connect Digital Coalition in celebrating more than 76 billion U.S. dollars in pledges this week, now two-thirds of the way to our $100 billion goal and commitments by the end of 2026. Second, I think this week has shown that the WSIS platform is ready to take on the challenges of the AI era, with trust and transparency at its very core. We had nearly 1,000 WSIS Prize submissions, and those submissions showcased impactful solutions, and some of the winners are, of course, using artificial intelligence to help improve government services, to fight cybercrime and fraud, and to deliver preventative healthcare to underserved communities. I’d like to again extend my congratulations to the 2025 WSIS Prize winners, and of course, the WSIS champions. And third, this week I would say that you have shown us, our WSIS community, that the WSIS story is far from over, and the next chapter is really ours to shape together. As I told ministers that came together at our roundtable on Wednesday, the road to the UN General Assembly plus 20 review in December, it really runs through us. And I do want to thank you all for those contributions that are going to help to shape this pivotal moment. And that will also help us to continue to leverage this time-tested WSIS process as a critical vehicle in the follow-up of the global digital compact. I want to thank you again for your commitment to the WSIS Action Alliance, and for dedicating your energy, your resources, in helping to ensure that we improve digital development outcomes for all. Ladies and gentlemen, as we wrap up what I would call an unforgettable week, I think we can be proud of what we have done together as governments, as the private sector, as academia, as the technical community, as civil society, and of course, as the United Nations. And I think together we can continue to keep this WSIS spirit alive beyond 2025. So let us together continue transforming this WSIS vision into impact, so that we can ensure that everyone, everywhere, can thrive in the digital era. I now have the great honour of inviting our Chair, His Excellency Soli Malatsi, to join us virtually. His Excellency had to, unfortunately, head back home, but he is here with us and has been monitoring our engagements. And I see you on the screen, welcome Chair, welcome Minister, and I hand the floor over to you, please.

Solly Malatsi: Thank you very much to the Secretary General of the ITU, Excellencies, colleagues and friends. First of all, let me express my sincere apologies that I’m having to join you virtually, when I would have preferred to still be with you in person for this important occasion. Secondly, let me express my gratitude for allowing me to close this remotely. Without fulfilling our urgent duties at home, our conversations in platforms like WSIS will not achieve the collective goals we are working towards. Despite not being there in person, my team and I have followed the events closely, and I want to express my deepest appreciation for the insights, the energy, and the dedication that every delegate has brought to this milestone gathering. Over the course of the week, this gathering has reaffirmed not only the enduring value of the WSIS process. but also the collective commitment to building a digital future that is more inclusive, more responsive, and most importantly, more human. What this week’s conversations have made clear is that there remains widespread support for the continuation of the YSYS architecture beyond 2025, but we must also be realistic with our responsibility. The process must evolve, and the commitments made this week will inform the next chapter of YSYS’ journey, which must be underpinned by an increased emphasis on inclusivity, equity, and sustainability. YSYS can build on the existing solid foundation, but it must equally be more agile and more efficient. In the resource-constrained environment we find ourselves in, we must be careful to avoid duplication of mandates while maintaining our commitment to a multi-stakeholder approach. This is what makes YSYS what it is. More importantly, our approach to inclusivity must also evolve. We have heard clearly what we need to do to be more precise, more intentional in how we define and practice inclusivity. We must be careful about prematurely congratulating ourselves for being inclusive. Inclusion means more than merely opening doors. It means that we must meet our stakeholders where they need to be met, and where we think they need to be met. Only by doing this can we ensure that YSYS is truly inclusive. It must be fair, it must be equitable, and it must also be accessible. For YSYS to maintain its relevance, we must examine our modalities, reduce barriers to participation, and invest in the institutional and human capacities of those that are not yet on the table. Finally, our engagements this week have also reaffirmed the continued relevance of the YSYS action lines. They have helped us make progress over the last two decades, and remain a guiding light for our work going forward. But the world we operate in has changed, and so must our tools. We must explore ways to refine and qualify the action lines, so that progress can be clearly measured against the complex and evolving digital landscape. As we move forward, we must also integrate the global digital compact into the YSYS process to reduce duplication. In our pursuit of efficiency, we must not discard what works, but we must also not hesitate to be ambitious in our attempts to implement improvements where we can. As we look towards the UN General Assembly’s review of YSYS this December, we carry forward a powerful message. The YSYS process remains an indispensable part of our pursuit of a more inclusive, equitable, and empowering information society. It is clear that this process must be future ready. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to shape the next 20 years and beyond of global digital cooperation. Let us meet that responsibility with courage, with clarity, empathy, and collective resolve. Let us ensure that YSYS accelerates vision and empowerment. To ensure the views expressed during the past five days are reflected in the YSYS review process, I will be submitting the chair’s summary on the YSYS plus 20 high level of 2025 to the UN General Assembly. Through the summary, we hope to anchor the collective vision articulated this week firmly in the broader digital community’s global understanding of our efforts in the information society. Thanks to all of you for making time for this important gathering this week, and I wish you all safe travels home. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Chair. We’ve missed you being with us here today, but thank you so much. The chair’s summary is now available online for all of you to read. Do download it and read it from the YSYS forum website. We would now like to invite South African representative chair to collect your silver medal as a token of ITU’s appreciation, and for all the good work that you did here as the chair of the YSYS plus 20 high level event. Thank you, Chair. Cynthia has your silver medal, which she will give to you when she meets you in South Africa. Thank you so much. We would now like to invite Ambassador Schneider, our co-host and our co-organizers on the stage, and we would like to open the floor for any comments, interventions to keep them really short, one minute each, so that we can get as many people to join us in this session. Please do raise your flag, and I’m aware that our sponsor, Malaysia, would like to start, so could someone please give Malaysia a mic? Ruth?

Malaysia representative: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Your Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of Malaysia, I wish to extend our heartfelt congratulations to the ITU’s silver medalists, and I would like to invite Ambassador Schneider to give a speech. For the 160th anniversary, this milestone is more than a celebration. It is a reminder of the ITU’s enduring relevance in shaping the global digital agenda. Malaysia is proud to stand with the ITU, not just as a member of the Council, but as a committed partners in action. Through this, we have had the opportunity to share our journey, to learn from others, and to scale what works. This year’s recognition of two of our flagship projects, Nadi and Stingray 2, speak to our core belief that digital inclusion is a fundamental right, not a luxury. Our Nadi National Network of Digital Community Centres has touched nearly two million lives, bringing digital literacy, services, and support to those who need it the most. These are not isolated projects that reflect Malaysia’s broader commitment to a digital society that leaves no one behind. We remain active in the IT ecosystem, contributing to study groups, hosting capacity-building programmes, and delivering our Partner to Connect pledge. As we seek the re-election to the ITU Council for 2027-2030, we do so humbly and with a sense of shared purpose. Let me end by reaffirming our commitment to the Malaysia mission. We will continue to collaborate across borders, build meaningful partnerships, and invest in solutions that are inclusive by design. Congratulations again to the ITU. We look forward to building the next chapter together. Thank you very much.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much, Malaysia, and thank you for also being our first time ever Platinum Partner. We do hope we’ll welcome you back next year. Thank you so much, sir. Do we have any other names? Yes, ma’am. Yes, with the glasses. Could you please also introduce yourself? There’s a hand up there.

Panelist ( Ethic minds and Multilateral Group ): Thank you. My name is Christine Hausel. On behalf of Ethic Minds Institute and Multilateral Group, we would like to truly thank the organizers of WSIS and ITU for the truly inclusive approach to this forum. So much to talk about. Our focus here has been on children. We would like to encourage us all to make children front and center in our thinking and conversations. Yes, the future is theirs, and they are also actors now. We might even say stakeholders. And we have a duty of care to them and to the new environment in which they are living in, formed by, and contributing to. And as we process the fact that AI and AI-powered robots are happening and will have new prominence in our children’s lives, and really just beginning to absorb and look at the implications, we note all the other technologies we’re talking about. We have focused on quantum computing. We would like to assert that children’s data is valuable. They have a right to their data. There are technical solutions in our work at Vaulted Ventures to at once, for them and their parents and caregivers, protect, connect to, own, and make decisions as to the use of the data, and even to make revenue from it. The moment is now to reestablish hope in our ability to control our own data. The technology allows it, and we affirm the focus on partnership to bring needed technologies into practice, along with the accompanying awareness-raising education and standards setting. And just a quote to end from 7-year-old Ravir, who spoke on the Frontier stage at AI for Good, accompanied by his parents, Gurjot and Manmeet. He said, in the race for innovation, don’t forget us. Looking forward to the ongoing conversations and mutual commitments. Thank you for this moment.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you. Professor Bruck from the World Summit Award

World Summit Award representative: Thank you very much, Ms. Sah, ladies and gentlemen, excellencies. In 2003, when business started, the global technology landscape was completely different than today. We are facing today an unprecedented situation in terms of, on the one hand, concentration of power in the digital sphere, and on the other hand, an underfunding of the UN and the UN system in terms of regulation, and also in terms of standards and also governance building. From the point of view of the World Summit Award and its constituency of social impact entrepreneurs globally, I think we need to address this, and I want to make sure that this is also taken to the Review Summit in New York in December, because otherwise we are just ignoring the big elephants in the room, and we are not becoming effective in terms of what we have as goals and aims. So I’m very much concerned about those aspects of the concentration of power and also of the UN system lacking the resources to continue the process as inclusive and as multi-stakeholder as it has been. Thank you very much.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Professor Bruck. We have AFIP. Mr. Anthony. Thank you.

AFIP President: Thank you. I’m Anthony Wong. I’m the AFIP President, founded by UNESCO in 1960. I’m very privileged to be here. My first involvement with WSIS was 2012 with my AFIP colleagues, and I’ve seen so much change since 2012 with the AI momentum and what we’re discussing today. So I’m very pleased to be here and congratulate ITU, UNESCO, and all eight UN partners for a very successful conference and summit this year in Geneva, and we’re always ready to assist. So thank you. Bye-bye. Thank you for your partnership, AFIP, taking IT Google. Jennifer.

Panelist 1: Thank you and congratulations to the entire organizing team. Two brief points. I really saw yesterday, there was a student that said, my teachers are against AI, so I’m learning these tools on my own. And that is a great tragedy if kids are just learning everything on their own. So I think we need to invest significantly in teacher training and upskilling. That’s one key point, and it relates to the e-learning commitment in the Declaration of Principles. And the other thing I mentioned earlier, but just with the audience that we have, I would like to have Taking It Global be part of WSIS plus 20 national multi-stakeholder action reporting dialogue in Canada and to inspire more national multi-stakeholder action dialogues because there’s a lot of cynicism when commitments are made without action. And what I love about the summit is the emphasis on action. So citizens need to know that there is action and that they need to be part of that reporting process. So I would like to see what more I can do to help in Canada and inspire the same around the world. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Jennifer. I see our gold partner, Saudi Arabia, would like to take the floor. Saudi Arabia, the floor is yours.

Saudi Arabia: Thank you, Gitanjali. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to the Secretary General of the ITU and all the co-organizing UN agencies in this high-level event. It has been an honor to engage with distinguished colleagues who share a commitment to the WSIS vision and advancing sustainable development through digital cooperation. As we mark 20 years since the World Summit on Information Society, we reaffirm the continued relevance of its outcomes. Looking ahead, it is essential that this process remains dynamic and responsive to today’s opportunities and challenges, especially those brought by emerging technologies such as AI. We look forward to continuing this important journey and warmly invite you to the Global Symposium for Regulators in Riyadh next month, where many of these themes will continue to be explored. Thank you all for your dedication and contribution to building an inclusive and innovative digital future. Thank you all very much.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Saudi, for your commitment towards the WSIS process. Do we have any more hands up? If you could stand up, because, yes, please, ma’am.

Ambassador of Bolivia: Thank you so much and very brief. I’m the Ambassador of Bolivia. Also, I would like to thank our DRSG for the organization of this conference and the team that is very important for us, this topic, and I think for my country, for everyone. I think it’s important to continue working for promotion, closing the gaps of technology, better accessibility, and working also to put a human rights perspective when it comes to technology and to AI. This is an important conversation that must be going on to promote better participation and access also of the vulnerable populations, indigenous peoples, peasants, and I think also this is important also to remind the gender perspective when it comes to these advances in technology. Bolivia, I’m interested in continuing to work with ITU in support of all the partnerships to promote a better access and closing the gaps in technology. Thank you, DRSG.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Ambassador. Colleagues, the light is really bright here, so if anyone is raising their hand, please stand up so we can give you the mic. Okay, so yes, is it up to …? Yes, please.

Abdulkarim Oloyede: Okay, thank you very much. I want to first of all congratulate you, Team Ms. Doreen Bogdan-Martin, your team, on this excellent WESIS 2025. And I would like to say on behalf of the high-level track facilitators, we had a lovely high-level track. And one thing that was so important to us is that this process has to continue, because seeing from what the ministers and the high-level track events told us, that we have to continue this process. And it is also important for us to understand that there is still a lot of work that has to be done, and we have to ensure that we find a way in bridging the gap and ensuring that we connect those that are yet to be connected, and also to make sure that we continue to strive in order to make the world a better one. Thank you very much.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you. Are there any more hands up? Yes, sir.

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you very much. My name is Jimson Olufuye from Abuja, Nigeria. I would like to congratulate ITU, the Swiss government, and all the participating organizers. It has been a mind-blowing event. Congratulations. My question is this, is a question. This has been a fantastic event. Can we replicate it in all our capitals? I look forward to us celebrating it in our capitals. Is that possible? Thank you very much.

Doreen Bogdan Martin: She wants me to answer. I’ll say we’d be happy to help do that within our limited resources, but I do think it is great to take this on the road to advance it in your capitals regionally and continue to do this also globally. We welcome you back next year. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, S.G. That was the perfect answer. We are also working with the UN Regional Commissions. We are organizing these regional WSIS events on a regular basis, so please join us there. I see one hand on the back. Are you packing your bag? Since we’ve finished on time, we have the opportunity to have a group photograph with the S.G. as well. Sir, you’ll be the last speaker. Please go ahead.

Panelist 2: Thank you for the opportunity. I am Damit. I represent IFIF here, and I’m from Sri Lanka. This is my first experience at WSIS, so I thought I’d share my experience because it’s a fantastic week in Geneva. I would like to say I had the chance to share ideas, the contact with global peers, and explore real solutions for digital solutions and AI for good. WSIS isn’t just a summit. It’s a launchpad for collaboration and impact. I’m very happy to say I’m leaving Geneva energized, inspired, and charged and hopeful for the future of ICT, particularly around the AI revolution. Thank you, WSIS. It’s a fantastic experience, first experience for me. Thank you so much. Well done.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you so much. I think that’s a great last intervention, energized, charged, and hopeful. Thank you for that. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re going to wrap up in a moment. I want to, of course, thank our UN partners from UNCTAD, UNDP, and UNESCO. Thank you for your continued support to my fellow elected officials, Thomas, Cezo, Cosmos. Thank you so much. I want to thank in particular the ITU team. As you all know, this process has been led by Gitanjali. If you could stand up. Can we please give Gitanjali a round of applause? And if the whole WSIS team, and that includes you too, Selena, and Bilal, if you can all stand up. And maybe come to the front. ITU WSIS team, come to the front real quick. We had amazing staff, volunteers, interns. They’ve done a tremendous job in preparing for this amazing week, and we thank them all. Sorry, we’re standing in the way. You guys should stand with us. We don’t want to… Come, join us. So, this is what it takes to put on a WSIS. I want to thank everybody up here on the stage, and those that are not on the stage with us, but also helped to make this possible. So, another round of applause, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you.

Agreement points

WSIS Success and Need for Continuation

Speakers

– Doreen Bogdan Martin
– Solly Malatsi
– Jimson Olufuye
– Panelist 2
– Gitanjali Sah
– Abdulkarim Oloyede

Arguments

WSIS Success and Global Participation

Future Evolution and Continuity of WSIS Beyond 2025

WSIS Success and Global Participation

WSIS Success and Global Participation

WSIS Success and Global Participation

Future Evolution and Continuity of WSIS Beyond 2025

Summary

All speakers unanimously praised WSIS 2025 as highly successful and emphasized the need for the process to continue beyond 2025, with ministers and high-level participants confirming support for continuation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Digital Inclusion as Fundamental Priority

Speakers

– Solly Malatsi
– Malaysia representative
– Ambassador of Bolivia
– Abdulkarim Oloyede

Arguments

Digital Inclusion and Accessibility

Digital Inclusion and Accessibility

Digital Inclusion and Accessibility

Digital Inclusion and Accessibility

Summary

Strong consensus that digital inclusion must be a fundamental right and priority, with emphasis on reaching vulnerable populations, indigenous peoples, and those not yet connected

Topics

Development | Human rights

Partnership and Collaboration Commitment

Speakers

– Doreen Bogdan Martin
– Malaysia representative
– AFIP President
– Saudi Arabia
– Gitanjali Sah

Arguments

Partnership and Collaboration Commitments

Partnership and Collaboration Commitments

Partnership and Collaboration Commitments

Partnership and Collaboration Commitments

Partnership and Collaboration Commitments

Summary

Universal commitment to multi-stakeholder partnerships and collaboration, with concrete pledges and long-term institutional commitments demonstrated

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Children’s Rights and Protection in Digital Era

Speakers

– Panelist ( Ethic minds and Multilateral Group )
– Panelist 1

Arguments

Children’s Rights and Protection in Digital Era

Children’s Rights and Protection in Digital Era

Summary

Both speakers emphasized that children must be central to digital conversations as current stakeholders, not just future beneficiaries, with particular concern about AI education and data protection

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers acknowledge that AI revolution is happening now and requires addressing emerging technology implications, though from different perspectives – one focusing on WSIS platform readiness, the other on children’s protection

Speakers

– Doreen Bogdan Martin
– Panelist ( Ethic minds and Multilateral Group )

Arguments

AI Integration and Emerging Technologies

AI Integration and Emerging Technologies

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasized the need to extend WSIS impact to national level – one through reporting dialogues, the other through replicating events in capitals

Speakers

– Panelist 1
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

National Implementation and Reporting

National Implementation and Reporting

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlighted governance challenges – one focusing on power concentration and UN underfunding, the other on need for human rights perspective in technology governance

Speakers

– World Summit Award representative
– Ambassador of Bolivia

Arguments

Governance and Resource Challenges

Governance and Resource Challenges

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Resource Constraints Acknowledgment

Speakers

– World Summit Award representative
– Gitanjali Sah

Arguments

Governance and Resource Challenges

Future Evolution and Continuity of WSIS Beyond 2025

Explanation

Unexpected consensus between civil society representative and ITU leadership on acknowledging resource limitations – both recognizing UN system underfunding and limited resources for expanding WSIS impact

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Children as Current Stakeholders

Speakers

– Panelist ( Ethic minds and Multilateral Group )
– Panelist 1

Arguments

Children’s Rights and Protection in Digital Era

Children’s Rights and Protection in Digital Era

Explanation

Unexpected strong consensus on treating children as current stakeholders rather than just future beneficiaries, with both speakers providing concrete examples of children’s agency in digital spaces

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus on WSIS success and continuation, digital inclusion as fundamental priority, partnership commitments, and children’s digital rights. Agreement spans across different stakeholder groups including UN leadership, government representatives, civil society, and regional organizations.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with remarkable alignment across diverse stakeholders. The implications are positive for WSIS continuation beyond 2025, with clear mandate for evolution while maintaining core multi-stakeholder approach. The consensus provides strong foundation for the UN General Assembly plus 20 review process.

Different viewpoints

Approach to Digital Inclusion Implementation

Speakers

– Solly Malatsi
– Malaysia representative

Arguments

True inclusivity requires meeting stakeholders where they need to be met, not just opening doors, and demands investment in institutional and human capacities of those not yet at the table.

Malaysia demonstrates commitment to digital inclusion as a fundamental right through flagship projects that have reached millions of people with digital literacy and services.

Summary

Malatsi emphasizes the need for deeper structural changes and investment in capacities of underrepresented groups, warning against premature congratulations for being inclusive. Malaysia focuses on demonstrating success through concrete projects and measurable outcomes reaching millions.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Resource Allocation and Governance Priorities

Speakers

– World Summit Award representative
– Doreen Bogdan Martin

Arguments

There is unprecedented concentration of power in the digital sphere combined with underfunding of the UN system, creating challenges for effective regulation, standards, and governance building.

The Partner to Connect Digital Coalition demonstrates significant progress toward global connectivity goals through substantial financial commitments.

Summary

The World Summit Award representative highlights systemic underfunding and power concentration as major obstacles, while Bogdan Martin emphasizes successful fundraising and partnership achievements, presenting contrasting views on resource availability and effectiveness.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Unexpected differences

Teacher Resistance to AI in Education

Speakers

– Panelist 1

Arguments

Students learning AI tools independently due to teacher resistance represents a tragedy that requires significant investment in teacher training and upskilling to prevent children from learning everything on their own.

Explanation

This represents an unexpected internal disagreement within the education system itself, where teachers are actively opposing AI tools that students want to learn. This creates a unique situation where the barrier to digital inclusion comes from within educational institutions rather than from external factors like funding or infrastructure.

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The transcript reveals relatively low levels of direct disagreement among speakers, with most conflicts being subtle differences in emphasis and approach rather than fundamental opposition. The main areas of disagreement center on implementation strategies for digital inclusion, resource allocation priorities, and the pace of institutional change.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with significant implications for implementation effectiveness. The disagreements suggest different philosophies about whether to build on current successes or address systemic structural issues first, which could impact the coherence and effectiveness of future WSIS initiatives and digital cooperation efforts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers acknowledge that AI revolution is happening now and requires addressing emerging technology implications, though from different perspectives – one focusing on WSIS platform readiness, the other on children’s protection

Speakers

– Doreen Bogdan Martin
– Panelist ( Ethic minds and Multilateral Group )

Arguments

AI Integration and Emerging Technologies

AI Integration and Emerging Technologies

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasized the need to extend WSIS impact to national level – one through reporting dialogues, the other through replicating events in capitals

Speakers

– Panelist 1
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

National Implementation and Reporting

National Implementation and Reporting

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlighted governance challenges – one focusing on power concentration and UN underfunding, the other on need for human rights perspective in technology governance

Speakers

– World Summit Award representative
– Ambassador of Bolivia

Arguments

Governance and Resource Challenges

Governance and Resource Challenges

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Key takeaways

WSIS 2025 achieved unprecedented success with over 11,000 physical participants from 169 countries and over 100 ministers, demonstrating its role as a cornerstone of global digital cooperation

There is widespread support for continuing the WSIS process beyond 2025, but it must evolve to be more agile, efficient, and avoid duplication while maintaining its multi-stakeholder approach

The AI revolution is already happening now, not in the future, and WSIS is positioned to address AI era challenges with trust and transparency at its core

True digital inclusion requires meeting stakeholders where they need to be met, not just opening doors, and demands investment in institutional and human capacities of underrepresented groups

Children must be considered as current stakeholders and actors in digital development, not just future beneficiaries, with particular attention to their data rights and protection

The Partner to Connect Digital Coalition has achieved significant progress with over $76 billion in pledges, reaching two-thirds of the $100 billion goal by 2026

National implementation and multi-stakeholder reporting dialogues are crucial to combat cynicism about commitments without action

Resolutions and action items

Chair will submit the chair’s summary on WSIS plus 20 high level 2025 to the UN General Assembly to anchor the collective vision in the broader digital community’s understanding

Continue leveraging the WSIS process as a critical vehicle for follow-up of the Global Digital Compact

Integrate the Global Digital Compact into the WSIS process to reduce duplication

Explore ways to refine and qualify the WSIS action lines so progress can be clearly measured against the evolving digital landscape

Invest significantly in teacher training and upskilling to address the gap where students are learning AI tools independently

Establish national multi-stakeholder action reporting dialogues, starting with Canada as an example to inspire similar processes worldwide

Continue organizing regional WSIS events through UN Regional Commissions to replicate success in national capitals

Unresolved issues

How to address the unprecedented concentration of power in the digital sphere while the UN system faces underfunding challenges

Specific mechanisms for ensuring vulnerable populations including indigenous peoples and peasants have meaningful participation in digital development

Concrete strategies for bridging the digital divide and connecting those yet to be connected

How to balance the need for WSIS evolution with maintaining its inclusive multi-stakeholder character in resource-constrained environments

Technical implementation details for protecting children’s data rights and enabling their ownership and revenue generation from personal data

Specific modalities and barriers that need to be addressed to make WSIS truly inclusive, fair, equitable, and accessible

Suggested compromises

WSIS must build on existing solid foundation while being more agile and efficient, balancing continuity with innovation

Avoid duplication of mandates while maintaining commitment to multi-stakeholder approach

In pursuit of efficiency, do not discard what works but be ambitious in implementing improvements where possible

Meet stakeholders where they need to be met rather than where organizers think they should be met, requiring more intentional and precise approaches to inclusivity

We must be careful about prematurely congratulating ourselves for being inclusive. Inclusion means more than merely opening doors. It means that we must meet our stakeholders where they need to be met, and where we think they need to be met. Only by doing this can we ensure that YSYS is truly inclusive. It must be fair, it must be equitable, and it must also be accessible.

Speaker

Solly Malatsi (Chair/Minister)

Reason

This comment challenges the conventional understanding of inclusivity in international forums. Rather than accepting surface-level participation as sufficient, Malatsi redefines inclusion as an active, intentional process that requires meeting stakeholders on their terms. This represents a sophisticated critique of performative inclusivity.

Impact

This comment elevated the entire discussion from celebratory to critically reflective. It shifted the tone from congratulatory to introspective, forcing participants to examine whether their efforts truly serve underrepresented communities or merely create an appearance of inclusion.

I really saw yesterday, there was a student that said, my teachers are against AI, so I’m learning these tools on my own. And that is a great tragedy if kids are just learning everything on their own. So I think we need to invest significantly in teacher training and upskilling.

Speaker

Jennifer (Taking IT Global)

Reason

This anecdote powerfully illustrates a critical gap between technological advancement and educational preparedness. It transforms abstract policy discussions into a concrete human story, highlighting how institutional resistance to AI creates educational inequities and forces students to navigate complex technologies without guidance.

Impact

This comment introduced a generational perspective that hadn’t been prominently featured earlier. It shifted focus from high-level policy frameworks to ground-level implementation challenges, particularly in education, and emphasized the urgency of addressing the human capacity gap.

We are facing today an unprecedented situation in terms of, on the one hand, concentration of power in the digital sphere, and on the other hand, an underfunding of the UN and the UN system in terms of regulation, and also in terms of standards and also governance building… we are just ignoring the big elephants in the room, and we are not becoming effective in terms of what we have as goals and aims.

Speaker

Professor Bruck (World Summit Award)

Reason

This comment directly confronts the structural power imbalances that undermine digital governance efforts. It challenges the optimistic tone of the summit by highlighting the fundamental contradiction between ambitious goals and inadequate resources, while also addressing the concentration of digital power in private entities.

Impact

This intervention introduced a note of realism that contrasted sharply with the generally celebratory atmosphere. It forced acknowledgment of systemic challenges that could undermine the entire WSIS process, shifting the conversation toward structural constraints rather than just aspirational goals.

As we process the fact that AI and AI-powered robots are happening and will have new prominence in our children’s lives… we note all the other technologies we’re talking about. We have focused on quantum computing. We would like to assert that children’s data is valuable. They have a right to their data… The moment is now to reestablish hope in our ability to control our own data.

Speaker

Christine Hausel (Ethic Minds Institute and Multilateral Group)

Reason

This comment introduces children as active stakeholders rather than passive beneficiaries, while connecting emerging technologies like quantum computing to immediate data rights concerns. It reframes children’s relationship with technology from protection-focused to rights-based, emphasizing agency and ownership.

Impact

This intervention broadened the technological scope beyond AI to include quantum computing and introduced a rights-based framework for children’s digital participation. It shifted the discussion from adult-centric policy-making to recognizing children as stakeholders with legitimate claims to digital rights and data ownership.

There’s a lot of cynicism when commitments are made without action. And what I love about the summit is the emphasis on action. So citizens need to know that there is action and that they need to be part of that reporting process.

Speaker

Jennifer (Taking IT Global)

Reason

This comment addresses a fundamental challenge in international cooperation – the gap between commitments and implementation. It highlights how public cynicism undermines digital governance efforts and emphasizes the need for transparent, participatory accountability mechanisms.

Impact

This comment reinforced the action-oriented theme while introducing the critical issue of public trust and accountability. It connected high-level policy commitments to citizen engagement, emphasizing that legitimacy requires both transparency and meaningful participation in monitoring progress.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a routine closing ceremony into a substantive reflection on the fundamental challenges facing digital governance. Malatsi’s critique of performative inclusivity set a tone of critical self-examination that permeated subsequent interventions. The comments collectively shifted the discussion from celebrating achievements to acknowledging structural limitations, power imbalances, and implementation gaps. They introduced multiple overlooked perspectives – children as rights-holders, teachers as critical intermediaries, and citizens as accountability partners – while challenging participants to move beyond aspirational rhetoric toward concrete, inclusive action. The interventions created a more honest and comprehensive dialogue about the complexities of global digital cooperation, ultimately strengthening the discussion by acknowledging both achievements and persistent challenges.

How can we replicate WSIS events in national capitals?

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Explanation

This question addresses the scalability and localization of WSIS impact, seeking ways to extend the global summit’s benefits to national and regional levels

How can we better integrate teacher training and upskilling to prevent students from learning AI tools independently without guidance?

Speaker

Jennifer (Taking IT Global)

Explanation

This addresses a critical gap in education where students are self-learning AI tools while teachers oppose them, highlighting the need for systematic educator preparation

How can we establish more national multi-stakeholder action reporting dialogues to ensure accountability and citizen participation in WSIS commitments?

Speaker

Jennifer (Taking IT Global)

Explanation

This focuses on addressing cynicism about commitments without action by creating structured national reporting mechanisms that involve citizens

How can we address the concentration of power in the digital sphere and underfunding of the UN system for digital governance?

Speaker

Professor Bruck (World Summit Award)

Explanation

This identifies a fundamental structural challenge affecting the effectiveness of global digital governance and the UN’s capacity to regulate and set standards

How can we refine and qualify the WSIS action lines to clearly measure progress against the complex and evolving digital landscape?

Speaker

Solly Malatsi

Explanation

This addresses the need to update measurement frameworks to match current digital realities and ensure accountability in achieving WSIS goals

How can we integrate the Global Digital Compact into the WSIS process to reduce duplication while maintaining effectiveness?

Speaker

Solly Malatsi

Explanation

This seeks to streamline global digital governance processes to avoid redundancy while preserving the strengths of existing frameworks

How can we make WSIS more truly inclusive by meeting stakeholders where they need to be met rather than just opening doors?

Speaker

Solly Malatsi

Explanation

This challenges current inclusivity practices and calls for more intentional and effective approaches to stakeholder engagement

How can we protect children’s data rights and enable them to own, control, and potentially monetize their data in the AI era?

Speaker

Christine Hausel (Ethic Minds Institute and Multilateral Group)

Explanation

This addresses emerging concerns about children’s digital rights and data sovereignty as AI and quantum computing technologies advance

How can we ensure children are front and center in digital policy conversations as both future beneficiaries and current stakeholders?

Speaker

Christine Hausel (Ethic Minds Institute and Multilateral Group)

Explanation

This emphasizes the need to recognize children’s agency in digital spaces and their right to participate in decisions affecting their digital future

Summary

This transcript captures the final session of the WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe, a week-long series of discussions examining the future of the World Summit on the Information Society beyond 2025. The session was moderated by William Lee from Australia, with support from three table facilitators who guided small group discussions among participants representing various stakeholder groups including government, private sector, academia, and civil society.

The discussion was structured around three key questions that participants explored in rotating table conversations. The first question focused on developing a collective vision for WSIS beyond 2025, with groups emphasizing the need for greater inclusivity, meaningful participation from underrepresented communities including youth and indigenous voices, and stronger connections between policy-level discussions and on-ground realities. Participants highlighted the importance of maintaining WSIS’s multi-stakeholder approach while addressing new challenges like artificial intelligence and digital sovereignty.

The second question examined how WSIS can continue supporting global development goals, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals. Groups stressed the importance of local implementation, capacity building at grassroots levels, and better integration between WSIS action lines and SDG frameworks. They emphasized the need for measurable impact, practical outcomes, and leveraging WSIS’s political visibility to drive development objectives.

The final question addressed strengthening WSIS implementation mechanisms, including UN agencies coordination, stock-taking processes, and the Internet Governance Forum. Participants identified challenges with UN system silos, funding constraints, and the need for better collaboration rather than competition among agencies. They called for more horizontal structures, regular performance reviews, and strategic partnerships to avoid duplication of efforts.

Throughout the discussions, recurring themes emerged including the need for better outreach and communication about WSIS processes, addressing digital divides, incorporating environmental considerations, and ensuring that affected communities are included in decision-making rather than merely being discussed. The session concluded with participants encouraged to contribute their ideas to the formal WSIS review process, demonstrating the collaborative spirit that has characterized the WSIS framework for two decades.

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

This was the final session of a week-long WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe, focused on developing a collective vision for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) beyond 2025. The discussion aimed to gather input for an outcome document that will feed into a UN General Assembly review in December 2025, with participants from multiple stakeholder groups discussing how to strengthen and evolve the WSIS process.

## Major Discussion Points

– **Expanding Participation and Inclusion**: Participants emphasized the need to broaden WSIS engagement beyond current attendees, particularly focusing on underrepresented communities, indigenous voices, youth, people with disabilities, and marginalized groups. There was discussion about creating more accessible participation mechanisms, including childcare facilities and sign language interpretation.

– **Strengthening Multi-stakeholder Implementation at Local Levels**: A key theme was moving WSIS implementation from high-level policy discussions to practical action at national, regional, and community levels. Participants advocated for strengthening Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) and National/Regional Initiatives (NRIs) to create sub-national and local-level implementation mechanisms.

– **Integration of Emerging Technologies and New Challenges**: Discussions centered on how WSIS can adapt to address new technological developments, particularly AI, while maintaining its foundational principles. Participants noted the disconnect between AI for Good summits (which attract large audiences) and WSIS processes, suggesting better integration of new technology streams into existing WSIS architecture.

– **Improving Coordination and Reducing Silos**: Significant attention was given to strengthening coordination among the 39 UN agencies involved in WSIS implementation, moving from competition to collaboration, establishing liaison mechanisms, and addressing sustainability challenges amid reduced funding and UN reform pressures.

– **Enhanced Measurement and Accountability**: Participants called for better metrics to measure WSIS impact, more transparent reporting on achievements and gaps, stronger links between WSIS action lines and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and engagement of top-level consultants to improve measurement methodologies.

## Overall Tone

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with participants demonstrating genuine engagement and expertise. While there were critical observations about current limitations (such as lack of visibility, funding challenges, and organizational silos), the tone remained solution-oriented and optimistic about WSIS’s potential. The atmosphere was informal yet professional, with facilitators encouraging open dialogue and emphasizing that there were “no wrong answers.” The energy remained consistently high across the two-hour session, with participants actively contributing ideas and building on each other’s suggestions.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jennifer Chung** – ITU colleague, involved in organizing the WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe

– **William Lee** – WSIS Plus 20 Policy Lead for the Australian Government, moderator from Australia

– **Jimson Olufuye** – From Abuja, Nigeria, private sector representative, table moderator

– **Joyce Chen** – From APNIC (Asia Pacific Network Information Centre), table moderator

– **Isabelle Lois** – Table moderator (specific role/organization not clearly mentioned)

– **Participant** – Role/expertise not specified

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members with various backgrounds including government officers, academia, private sector, development agencies

**Additional speakers:**

– **Francesca** – Academia sector

– **Vera Bedard** – Government sector

– **Pamela** – From Malaysia, government officer

– **Kyle** – From California

– **Marcelo Martinez** – Works in support groups, has been following WSIS conversations for 10 years

– **Brian** – Background in information/libraries field

– **Nelia** – From Georgia

– Various other unnamed participants from different countries including Malaysia, South Africa, Czech Republic, and representing different sectors (government, private sector, academia, development agencies)

# WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe: Final Session Report

## Executive Summary

This report documents the final session of the WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe, moderated by William Lee, WSIS Plus 20 Policy Lead for the Australian Government. The session brought together diverse stakeholders including government representatives, private sector participants, academia, and civil society members to discuss the future of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) beyond 2025. The discussion was structured around three key questions explored through rotating table conversations, with findings intended to inform the UN General Assembly review process.

The session highlighted both the continued relevance of WSIS’s multi-stakeholder architecture and key challenges requiring attention, including the need for greater inclusivity, enhanced local-level implementation, improved coordination among UN agencies, and better integration of emerging technologies into existing frameworks.

## Session Structure and Methodology

The session employed a rotating table format with participants moving between three discussion tables, each facilitated by experienced moderators: Jimson Olufuye from Nigeria representing the private sector, Joyce Chen from APNIC, and Isabelle Lois. This structure enabled participants to engage with multiple perspectives on each key question.

The discussion was organized around three fundamental questions:

1. What should be the collective vision for WSIS beyond 2025?

2. How can WSIS continue to support global development goals?

3. How can WSIS implementation mechanisms be strengthened?

Jennifer Chung from ITU provided organizational support, emphasizing that the session aimed to capture diverse viewpoints to feed into the broader WSIS review process.

## Key Discussion Themes and Findings

### Vision for WSIS Beyond 2025

Participants emphasized that WSIS’s multi-stakeholder architecture remains effective after two decades. However, they stressed the urgent need to integrate emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, data governance, and cybersecurity, into the existing framework rather than creating parallel processes.

Jimson Olufuye highlighted the importance of attracting “all categories of stakeholders including more private sector, youth, and people with special needs for meaningful participation.” Joyce Chen emphasized the need for “full participation by underrepresented and marginalized communities, including indigenous voices” while maintaining rights-based and human rights-centered approaches.

A significant concern emerged regarding WSIS’s visibility compared to newer initiatives. One participant asked, “Why is it that AI for good is more popular than WSIS?” This observation sparked discussion about communication strategies and public engagement, with participants noting that despite WSIS being a foundational framework for digital governance, it lacks the visibility of more recent initiatives.

The concept of transitioning from “Homo sapiens to Homo digital” was discussed as part of the evolving digital landscape that WSIS must address.

### Supporting Global Development Goals

Participants advocated for leveraging the existing WSIS-SDG mapping framework while focusing implementation at national, sub-national, and community levels. The WSIS stock-taking database, containing 15,000 projects, was mentioned as a valuable resource for tracking implementation.

Jimson Olufuye proposed strengthening “IGF and National/Regional IGFs to move toward sub-national and local community engagement.” Joyce Chen emphasized the need for “train-the-trainers programmes and grassroots capacity building to connect policy level with on-ground realities.”

Due to the urgency of 2030 targets, Olufuye suggested establishing “quarterly engagement processes instead of annual ones.” Participants also discussed the fundamental need for electricity access as a prerequisite for digital access, highlighting infrastructure challenges in many regions.

### Strengthening Implementation Mechanisms

The most critical discussions centered on strengthening WSIS implementation mechanisms. Participants identified significant coordination problems among the 39 UN agencies involved in the UN Group on the Information Society (UNGIS), with Joyce Chen observing that there is “more competition than collaboration” among agencies amid reduced funding.

Participants proposed several concrete solutions:

– Creating liaison positions between different WSIS mechanisms (IGF, UNGIS, WSIS Forum)

– Engaging external consultants for measurement and evaluation rather than allowing agencies to assess their own work

– Updating UNGIS structures to include partners currently in observer status

– Implementing train-the-trainers programs for grassroots capacity building

The discussion also referenced the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines as relevant to improving participation mechanisms.

## Areas of Agreement and Key Challenges

### Strong Agreement Areas

Participants agreed on several fundamental issues:

– The urgent need for greater inclusion of underrepresented communities

– The necessity of focusing implementation at local, national, and community levels

– The importance of integrating new technologies like AI into existing WSIS architecture

– The need for better coordination among UN agencies and reduced competition between them

### Critical Challenges Identified

**Visibility and Awareness**: WSIS lacks public awareness despite being a foundational framework for digital governance, as highlighted by comparisons with the AI for Good summit’s popularity.

**Funding and Sustainability**: Joyce Chen highlighted “sustainability challenges due to reduced funding” and the impact of UN reform and budget cuts on maintaining human resources and institutional continuity.

**Inclusion Barriers**: Structural barriers prevent marginalized communities from participating in WSIS processes. Specific accessibility needs were discussed, including childcare facilities (referenced in the context of ICANN meetings) and sign language interpretation.

**Coordination Challenges**: The scale of coordinating among 40 agencies was questioned, with participants debating whether meaningful collaboration is realistic without structural changes.

## Practical Recommendations

Participants proposed several actionable solutions:

– Quarterly rather than annual engagement processes to meet 2030 targets

– Liaison positions between different WSIS mechanisms to improve coordination

– External measurement and evaluation to ensure objective assessment

– Enhanced train-the-trainers programs for grassroots capacity building

– Better integration of emerging technology discussions into existing WSIS frameworks

– Improved accessibility measures including sign language interpretation and childcare support

## Conclusion

The final session demonstrated both the continued relevance of the WSIS framework and the need for significant improvements in implementation and coordination. Participants showed commitment to preserving WSIS’s proven multi-stakeholder approach while adapting to contemporary challenges including emerging technologies, funding constraints, and inclusion barriers.

The discussion revealed a community willing to engage in honest assessment of current limitations while working toward practical solutions. The emphasis on local implementation, better coordination, and enhanced accessibility provides a foundation for WSIS’s continued evolution in addressing global digital governance challenges.

The outcomes of this session will contribute to the formal WSIS review process and inform discussions leading to the UN General Assembly review, building on the collaborative multi-stakeholder approach that has characterized WSIS for two decades.

William Lee: you should get in there, get data science in your belt, do this, get your car picture. Afternoon, everyone. My name is William. I’m from Australia. I’m moderating this session with our great ITU colleagues. Make sure you grab a box for lunch. I think there’s a few different varieties around, so if you haven’t got the one you’re looking for, there’s a couple spares at the back. We’ll actually kick start the discussion in about 10 minutes once everyone’s had a chance to eat. So dive in, and we’ll get started in about 10. Cheers.

Audience: Hi. Oh, yes, because there are only three facilitators, but more tables than there are facilitators. I don’t know if you can see it but it is much thinner. So yes, thank you. Yeah, but it’s not true. I mean, you wouldn’t know what it does. So I hope to have family in the future. Yeah. So I’m going to give it to you. Are you going to give it to me? Is it your birthday? It’s my birthday. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It’s just wonderful to have you here. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much for joining us in this finale of the WSIS Plus 20 Knowledge Cafe that we have organized for the whole week. And this Knowledge Cafe, particularly, is very important, I think, because it talks about the vision. And over the past few days, we have been engaging in focused discussions throughout several topics. On Monday, we began with the voices of youth. Hearing directly from the next generation about the vision and expectation. And then on Tuesday, we reflected on the two decades of WSIS, including the implementation of the WSIS action lines. On Wednesday, we highlighted the role of the multi-stakeholderism to sustain the WSIS process. And yesterday, we also heard the stories on the ground. So the success stories implemented by the WSIS stocktaking and prizes. And today, in our final cafe, we look ahead, of course, celebrating 20-year milestones. It is something that we are proud of. And we would like to hear more from you about what is the vision of the WSIS process beyond 2025. And I think this Knowledge Cafe will be really critical. And it will be captured as well, of course, the summary of this session in our outcome document. And it will be feed into the UNGA review in December 2025. And I hope your appetite has been filled up and you’re ready to engage with us. We have a few questions that we would like to ask with you and engage and having the conversations. So I have my colleague with me, William, from Australia, who will be moderating today’s session. And over to you, William. Thank you.

William Lee: Great. Thanks, everyone. And thanks for joining us. I’m just going to stand over here so I’m not getting blinded by the projector. And I think we have a slide that’s got some questions for today’s session. But first, let me introduce myself, my name is William Lee, I’m the WSIS Plus 20 Policy Lead for the Australian Government. So you will have seen me probably around either IGF or the WSIS Forum and I hope to have some really great conversations here today as well. We also have three excellent moderators who are sitting hidden in plain sight on your tables who will be helping me out in terms of today’s session. So we have Joyce, Joyce I don’t know if you want to put your hand up, excellent. We’ve got Isabel, Isabel’s there and I think Jimson, are you number three for us? Excellent, yeah fantastic. So if you’re sitting on a table that doesn’t have one of those three people on it and you’d like to join one of the facilitated conversations, you’re absolutely more than welcome to move up and I’ll be looking after this table, table right here, otherwise you’re more than welcome to participate as well at the back. As my colleagues from ITU have introduced, this session is really about the future of WSIS, which is fantastic to see, our collective vision beyond 2025 and the purpose of this session is really to unpick where we would like to see WSIS go forward. So we had lots of conversations this week about where WSIS is, all of the achievements to date, some of the areas where there are future opportunities or are future areas of focus and today is really about pulling all of that together and saying where do we collectively want to take that forward. I don’t know if we can get the slide with the questions on it, perhaps, I’m looking, excellent. So we’ve got three questions, we’re going to have about 10 minutes each for each. question and then after each question we’ll come back and hear from each of the groups as to what you think is the answer and outputs to each question. On your tables you’ll find some pens, you’ll find some pieces of paper, you’ll find some cool stickers which I think are pretty cool so if you haven’t collected a sticker I would encourage you to take that but really we’re looking for all ideas, all points of view, all different perspectives. There’s no right answer, there’s no wrong answer, there’s no answer that is silly, there’s no answer that shouldn’t be shared so take the opportunity to have some conversations amongst colleagues and through that dot down some of those key points and then after about 10 minutes we’ll regroup, hear from each of the groups as to kind of what is coming up to the surface for you. Our first question today is what is our collective vision for WSIS beyond 2025 and I know we have the WSIS vision itself for a people-centred inclusive and development orientated information society. I think this question is inviting us to kind of unpack that a little bit more, what is it that we want to see out of the WSIS process going forward. I will foreshadow the other two questions that are coming so you can start to think about them. The second question is around how WSIS can help to continue to achieve global development goals and the third is around the WSIS mechanisms that implement them. We will come back to those questions though as we go through the day but for now I would encourage you to continue to have lunch, continue to have some conversations. Focusing in on this first question, and then start to jot down some of those points. And at about half past 12, we’ll regroup and I’ll invite our facilitators, Joyce, Jimson, Isabelle to join, to take the microphone and to share what their groups have come up with as well as anyone else that wants to join before we move on to our next question. Does that sound like a good plan? Yes? Excellent, cool. I’ll leave you to it and come back to you in about 10 minutes. Enjoy their lunch and enjoy some great conversation.

Audience: That’s a team. That’s a team. Because that group is a team. Team. You can pull the chair over. I’ve got the angle. But this is my chair, I can find it for you. Oh, it’s cool. I’ll pull my chair for you, okay? Oh, okay. The first thing I would like to suggest that we should have is Kyle, okay? The one that we could look for. I think we have a lot of wonderful, very valuable volunteers that we’ve had. Just facilitating. So it’s really just a free conversation, a couple of questions, but I want to frame this question a little differently just to help guide our thinking a bit better. Let’s first get ourselves pointed out. I might start, I know we only have about 10 minutes, but I might start first just introducing ourselves and getting to know one another. And then we will go to the questions. We believe the world will still be amazing, 20, 30 years, 40, right? So how do we see? Let’s go. First, we’d like to start by introducing ourselves first. We still have ideas. We still have, hello everybody, my name is Brian. We still have new technology, blockchain, AI, we’ve got something new. So what is the vision about you? Would there be more and more participation at the World Bank, or old people participation? So what is your vision? My vision is that we should attract all categories of stakeholders, so more private sector can be represented in this crisis. And also, of course, youth, but also more representations and concrete actions from the various categories of the stakeholders. Okay, very good. So deepening multi-stakeholder participation. And effective partnership, really avoid duplication and involving this platform, all the stakeholders that are able to produce results in terms of what we want to achieve. Thank you. So meaningful participation and implementation of the vision. Okay, so any other ideas? I mean, I think maybe we can go from like a modeler to the modeler and the promoter to the information, meaning targeting all kinds of the population everywhere. Okay, the special population or the elderly, or even targeting the children, the younger children or the special group of population. Let me ask you a question. Targeting children. The moment you have one, so it’s not going to be… No, no, no, no, no. I think we can go for the information platform. Okay, that reminds me. You know, in ICANN, that’s Internet Corporation for Children and Young Adults, there was an agitation that, okay, there should be a place for babies so that their mothers can also come. And after the agitation, I found the tradition, every ICANN meeting, you have a baby section, so you have babies. Are you thinking directly, even here? So like, yeah, no, there’s no telling who they are. Are you thinking? No, no, no, no, no. Okay. No, no, no, no, no. Meaning? I think it’s just a history, and I’m contributing to the work that I’ve done. For her, for us, for me. But I am an individual. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Okay. And Luke, you didn’t mention what your background was, apart from, you know, being in the ITU. Is this? Yeah. So let me ask you a question. It’s an actual question. Apart from that, yes, you’re taking that. What is, in terms of education, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, what is, oh, thank you. IP addresses, the accounts, the numbers, these are the things that allow your advisors to help. And we do that regionally. So across the entire Asia-Pacific region, that’s what you’re thinking. And as for my role in the UNFET, I am a Strategic Relations Senior Advisor. So that’s me. You will meet on the website, because I’m actually directed in the UNFET by Jennifer, but she’s already gone back. I think I will give you half an hour to get to the questions that you think I’ve answered. I think the question asks, what is our collective vision of visits beyond 2025? But I think to help frame our thoughts, we might want to tackle this question first from what is your vision of what visits might look like beyond the people who get to come home from that visit. So anything that you want to add to that? Yeah, because I think if this book is going to be published when we organize a visit, there will be a sign language translator for the visitors, next time for the staff, also they can join. So I think that’s a good idea. I don’t have a sign language at the moment, so I’m very concerned. Okay, Nelia from Gurdia, but not in Gursi. In Gursi, no. Okay, I think for the visitors, maybe we can start from Francesca. Okay, sorry, I will have to ask you to mention your name. My name is Francesca. Francesca, okay. I’m Bedard. Vera Bedard, okay. Yes. What do you do? I work for the government. The sector, are you government, private sector? No, I said academia. Academia. Private sector. Private sector, okay. I am in the development agency, German development agency. Okay. Oh, okay. I’m a government officer. Okay. Yeah, I’m a government officer. Yeah, I work for the government. Me too. Okay. I work for the government. We are from Malaysia. Oh, okay, wonderful. My name is Bedard. Bedard. I don’t know. Kyle. Kyle. Yeah, from California. Malaysia as well. Oh, wonderful. I’m Pamela. Pamela. Nice to meet you. Oh, nice to meet you. What was your first name? Sorry. My son. My son. My son. So, welcome. Thank you so much. Thank you. You too. Thank you. So, we can. Thank you. In fact, when that happened, it got far more than we knew. We didn’t know what to do with it. Now that we have, I think. It’s a shortcut. The main reason. We must reach all our obligations when we reach the 20th anniversary. We can say that. We’re kind of close to the 20th anniversary. Because we watched the 20th anniversary. Yes, exactly. And that’s a close call. That’s a good mark on us. And it’s on the world. 21% has reached the 20th anniversary. We have five years ahead. And we’re definitely 75% or more not to reach the 20th anniversary. We have thousands. This is close to what I’ve done. I think we’re close to the 20th anniversary. It was the general. But it was not the 20th anniversary. We have been talking about it for a long time. And that’s a long time. We have been there. But it’s easier to say that it’s not. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not. How do we bring the people with us? I would let you all echo our thoughts. You have to try a little! No. Ok? This might be a roundabout, but I know there will be some people who come here and I’ll let them around. I’m just saying because I did not terminate all of my digital work, I went to a public meeting that morning, but because that was all over, I wanted to seek a more interstitial sense of friendship that was still in place, especially in this space. I just happened to, almost by coincidence or happenstance, run across all of the Elysium sites and I thought, this sounds pretty good. So I think at least then I get a sense as to what is the Elysium process and what is the organizing entity from the UN or ITU, what is it that we’re focusing in on to help get this word out, the massive building in the moment. And it took me five days to figure that out. For instance, my dad had to go back in my generation, but we don’t know anything about all this stuff. The US is one of those countries that would be overflown. In one plenary they mentioned a very good point, that AI requires a lot of energy, and we also need to think about the marginalized groups. So it’s a lot of marginalized groups. A lot of gallery at levels of government. So from my generation, I think it’s important to get close and hear their voices. One voice that I do not see at all here is indigenous voices. So in the US you have a multitude of Native American tribes that are not hearing. And the reason I’ve been told is they’re not hearing as well as the work is done by the government. And if the government doesn’t get the word out, then they’re not participating. Canada, yeah. Right. Do you think, would you like to introduce yourself to the group? Sure. My name is Marcelo Martinez. I work in the support groups. I’ve been following this conversation for, you know, 10 years now. It is very hard to understand all this. The conflicts and everything that’s going on. And we have, at this moment, through domestic conversations, we have a very holistic model of work that the government has established. We walk the talk, I can say that. Not many countries do that. And we’re engaging in conversations right now, exactly, with a view to establish international relations. That’s a great name. What is the name again? So that I can credit you. We are trying to find some optimism and optimism around it. Thank you. And just on that, for those of you who might be quite new to this process, there are also sort of parallel processes that have happened in the Middle East. It was discussed when you were here. For example, there was a very, very great initiative that was met on the aisle last time. An initiative of which came out the Sao Paulo Multidimensional Guidelines. And I encourage you, as you are starting on this journey, to read that as well, because it does contain an approach towards how we align multidimensional and multistakeholder processes together. And it does give quite specific recommendations for how that can be done, in order to achieve that multistakeholder vision that we have in the WSIS, for example. So that’s one thing that I could highlight. And thank you very much to your community for convening the global community to do that as well. Go ahead. Sorry. Sorry, that was next on the aisle. Plus 10, because that’s 10 years after the original next Monday aisle. And then the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines. Sorry. My first time here in Geneva. I had a good conference. And what I realized, what I’m asking myself is, why is the one so detached from the other? Because if you’re not into the field, you won’t hear of the WSIS process. And it’s a very important process, because everyone uses ICTs, everyone uses AI right now, every child uses it, but no one knows that there’s a whole European process around it. It has been more than 20 years. It actually started in 2003. Yeah. So now they start counting from Tunis in 2005. So now it’s 20 years from Tunis. But in Geneva, the first WSIS was 2003. Yeah. And it was 98 when they called for it, so it’s even older. Yeah. But the effective big summit, you know, with all the heads of state, there were 3,000 people. Yeah. So I think that’s a missed opportunity, because the AI for Good summit, it’s somewhat better known, of course. It attracts all the public. So why is it not connected stronger to the UN process? Why is it so detached from each other? The AI for Good summit, yeah. It’s totally separated, also different style. Yeah. And no one over there talks about WSIS here at the center stage. Yeah, I know. So why don’t they do this? Because we are also complaining always about lack of multistakeholderism and so on. Rightly so. But if it’s not that known, I mean, everyone knows about the climate conferences, for instance. Like every child knows about them. It’s also a UN process. Why doesn’t everyone know about WSIS? Yeah. Yeah. It’s a valid question. That’s also one of my ambition. Like I’m wishing that everyone knows about WSIS and become engaged. Well, my interest being that, because following your concern and your question, WSIS is not so discussed at the national level, mostly. Most countries don’t discuss it, mostly. So I think there has to be something of a commitment or improvement in the WSIS policy reviews to enable government to encourage this, to discuss it at the national level. Because it’s so important, transparent and standard space. I don’t know if there’s a potential to change it, given the potential of many countries and boundaries that are starting to evolve, where the Internet could be different. So when you have major players that perhaps are interested in taking different boundaries, then the Internet becomes very important. And then, with the lack of indigenous voice, in South Africa, they report. And I’m telling you, all of Africa, 54 countries, all of them are the tribes. And I can tell you that they reach principally because they would have to be informed on digital sovereignty, as opposed to, in my country… I also share all the issues. In my country, we have to make them feel like we are the government. We need to close the borders. We’ve got to check on all of those things.

William Lee: So let’s finish up the last of the bits. the conversations that you’ve been having about this first question, and I hope, and what I’ve heard, wondering, hearing, listening into bits of conversations around the room, is that there’s been some really, really good conversations so far. I’m going to stand at the back here this time to hear from all of our tables as we go through. So, gather your thoughts. I’ll give you 30 seconds to think about what you’re going to say, moderators, and then we’ll turn to the groups. Let’s turn first to this table over here, and Jimson, I don’t know if you want to kick us off in terms of updating. I think there’s a button on the microphone that will, just sort of up here next to the, Jimson, up the top somewhere. Yep. Okay, great. All right, thank you, Williams,

Jimson Olufuye: and I recognize the member of my team here. It has been a very robust discussion on the question, what is our collective vision of WSIS beyond 2025? My name, again, is Jimson Olufoye from Abuja, Nigeria, private sector. Well, everybody contributed, as mentioned. Firstly, it says that we hope that WSIS, going forward, will be able to attract all stakeholders, more stakeholders, so even youth, so that they can mainly participate in the process and also be involved in the implementation of all the action lines and targets. In particular, there was an emphasis that it should be borderless, that is, we should open it up much more, even to children, such in a way that we can encourage maybe in next WSIS meeting, mothers with their babies can come. So WSIS can prepare a care center, okay, so that those that are just giving birth, they can also come and their baby will be here, and the baby will be getting to hearing the vibe gradually. So they know the future. And then also we look at the youths that should be engaged in terms of solid education from 12 years old, in some countries 18 years, 16 years, but the suggestion was made that from 12 years old, we should really begin to groom young ones for WSIS activity or the ICT activity, and also give opportunity to people of special needs and produce tools for them. It was observed that in WSIS this year, there was no support for people with disabilities so much, like those with hearing issues, although we saw something in AI for Good, you know, but here it was lacking in WSIS. And then WSIS should continue, okay, so that we can continue to push to reach our goal. We have not reached the goal yet, because even SDG, according to U.N. reports, is about 21 percent achievement right now, and we are targeting 2030. And so we need to bridge the divide, make an effort. Then reaffirm the commitment to Geneva and Tunisia documents, okay, we need to reaffirm it. And then there is an interesting one that, you know, we are the Homo sapiens, and we don’t know what will happen in 20 years, 30 years, 50 years’ time. Maybe we’ll become Homo digital, okay? So maybe some chips will be embedded, and we’ll be able to… transmit, talk more at advanced stage. But however, it is said that as we build capacity, connectivity, we should not lose our sense of creativity, our sense of agility, such that we can even continue to use our brain. When you go to a gym, you exercise your leg and leg. But brain need to be exercised. So we need to ensure that whatever solution, however it is down the line, we must not lose our ability for reasonability, to think and to be engaged. Not that you just go to AI immediately for everything. And so that sensibility needs to be there. Many of our people still lack electricity. It’s important we need to work on it, even climate issue. And education need to be transformed for positive use of technology to preserve, yes, creativity, as I mentioned. Then there was a fundamental question raised. Why is it that AI for good is more popular than WSIS? Actually, I went to AI for good. The place is massive. Oh, my. It’s massive. If you haven’t been there, you have to be. It’s massive, this one. So why is it so? Because WSIS is the grandfather. WSIS is the main, main superset. And AI for good just came. And yet it’s, you know. So what do we need to do? And we got a good language here that maybe in part of the WSIS Plus 20 review, there should be a line to give more visibility to WSIS, even at the country level. Because of course, there was a reference to South Africa. They produced a report, 20-year report. But you know what? Out of the 54 countries in Africa, only South Africa produced a report. So that underscored the need for that kind of visibility if we want to really achieve something. We have our scribe. who kind of fill in the gap where I’ve missed something. Yes, ascribe. Okay, to the left, to the center. Thank you.

William Lee: Thank you. What a great, what a great group and what a powerful statement. I love the idea of getting kids involved early and like keeping them involved. Well, what’s that? In a few generations, we’ll just have like a WSIS generation. I don’t know, that sounds really good. I love the idea of engagement. Obviously, Geneva, TUNE is really, really important and obviously reducing barriers to participation, very powerful as well. I’m gonna turn to Isabel now, who’s gonna read out the outcomes from this next group. Thank you.

Isabelle Lois: Thanks, Will. So we had a lot of discussions based on trying to first understand what does collective vision mean in a sense that we are different stakeholders here around the table. So we have different maybe thoughts, priorities, or visions of what WSIS is, what it’s delivering and then what it could deliver after the review. So after 2025. So that was the first part of our conversation, but we did come to sort of a few agreements or a few thoughts that I can share with all of you. So the baseline is that the WSIS architecture, so more than just the WSIS Forum, but all of the parts of the architecture is quite robust, it functions quite well and it has delivered in a good manner, in a good fashion for the past 20 years, but there’s still a lot of work that remains and we have new challenges. So the thing that we hope, or at least around this table, our small collective vision is that the WSIS architecture could integrate the new challenges, be that subject matter challenges in the sense of AI, data, cyber, information integrity, working on digital device or things like that, that’s one part, but then also working. on how they can be implemented throughout the structure, so these are sort of the two points that we raised. And then we had a few questions. How can we make sure that that process of delivering on these new challenges functions in a good way? Do we need to have indicators to be able to measure how far we’ve gotten in those implementations? How can we make sure that we are able to have a snapshot of seeing everything that is going on, seeing what has been done, what remains to be done, what should we focus on next? So that was one of the sort of questions we raised here. The other part is including the multi-stakeholder perspective and elements throughout the system and throughout implementation as well, and that goes with also using and utilizing every single aspect of the WSIS family or architecture, so that means using the IGF, using the NRIs, and making sure that all of the local regional elements are also included within the WSIS sort of architecture, because we have principles, we have ideas at a higher level, UN level, but then the work needs to be done in local communities, in regional aspects, and we have to make sure that these two parts are connected in a good way. We discussed as well sort of the questions of the GDC. How are we dealing with the GDC, the new political commitments we have there within the WSIS architecture? Should we have a joint implementation? How are we thinking about sort of fitting those two potential systems together? I think nobody wants a duplication, but it still remains a bit unclear on how we can fit them in the best way together. I mean, Switzerland has many ideas, but I don’t want to impose them as ideas from the table, so I will refrain, but please come and talk to me if you want to hear them. And then maybe the last point that I want to emphasize is the point on inclusion. We also had a good start of a discussion there. I think we could have gotten much further, but that inclusion is something that we should keep in mind and bear in mind now for the review, but also moving forward. I mean, the people-centered aspect of WSIS is very relevant, is something that we want to highlight and want to focus on, but making sure that we have inclusion, be it by the different countries, the regional groups, be it by having multi-stakeholder inclusion. So I think that, and also inclusion then within each topic. So I think that’s the last point I want to emphasize, and I hope I wasn’t too long.

William Lee: Excellent. Thanks, Isabelle, and to this group as well. Some really interesting kind of linkages already emerging around kind of taking action, still, still, WSIS is still relevant, inclusion, people-centred, finding ways to break down barriers to participation. I wonder what we’re going to hear from this group. And I see you have a microphone, Joyce, so go ahead.

Joyce Chen: Hello everyone. I’m Joyce from APNIC. Nice to meet all of you. And yes, we had a lot of very similar ideas. I loved Jimson’s energy, but I can only aspire to it. So I think this group started off, you know, sort of talking about actually who is not in this room. And we talked about, you know, that there needs to be a lot more capacity building, there needs to be a more outreach for people to know more about WSIS, just the fact that it’s even happening, I think the word is not exactly out there for a lot of the underrepresented communities. So the people who have been doing this work and have done it for many, many years, those who have followed WSIS from the beginning, it’s kind of become almost our livelihood. But there are so many other underrepresented communities who are out there who are not even aware that there are decisions and policy discussions that are being made on their behalf that they may not be aware of. So that was how we started off. And so we went into really thinking about, well, there needs to be full participation by all, particularly those who are underrepresented or marginalized communities. We talked a little bit about indigenous voices and how they could be better heard. And then we also talked another point about inclusion of all voices. So one is about participation, but the other one is about inclusion. And that really also looks at digital equity slash equality, depending on how you want to see it. that the WSIS needs to continue being rights-based, needs to be human rights-centered. And I fully appreciate that my table is actually a microcosm of multi-stakeholderism itself. Everybody has a different sort of stakeholder group and very, very nicely bringing all these issues to the fore. And then because of that, we then also talked about the fact that the WSIS needs to continue its nature of multi-stakeholderism. And how we could use, for example, the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines to complement, to understand the approach that complements multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism. We also talked about the WSIS needing to be open, transparent, all these very good values that it has had all these years, and to continue having these values. We did also talk about other issues that were not just directly on this question, but kind of touching other questions. I will just very quickly run through. One was about how we would contribute to the GDC and how to make the GDC more coherent and easy to understand. The other was, where should AI sit? And our table felt that it would be very important for the AI to be included into the WSIS, and that it should be covered by WSIS as well. We also did start talking about growing geopolitical tensions and the creation of boundaries. As we know, the internet is boundary-less. And so there is a huge potential for internet fragmentation because of these tensions that have been growing in terms of digital sovereignty, for example. That’s my summary, but if I had missed anything out.

William Lee: Great. Thanks, Joyce. And thanks to this whole group as well for some really insightful reflections around capacity building, human rights, the challenge of AI, I think that ties in really nicely with Jimson’s point and this group’s point about how AI is. so much bigger than WSIS, and WSIS being the grandfather of all digital tech, which I think is a great kind of linkage here, multilingualism, sorry, multistakeholderism, and the São Paulo Guidelines as well. Just quickly, because I think a lot of the points that have our kind of group talked about have also been raised by other tables, but our group also talked a little bit about bridging digital divides, having meaningful connectivity, ensuring that there is a universal level of connectivity, addressing things like unilateral coercive measures, managing community-led development in the public interest with resources that support that, and with a shared commitment and understanding. Supporting digital literacy was seen as really, really important through both leaders and through education, and building digital leadership and strong digital governance, and we had a really great example of sort of a train-the-trainers type model going on in Singapore and the Philippines, which was a really interesting piece. We talked a little bit about the opportunity that WSIS could bring and the opportunity to leverage regional organisations to help take forward some of the WSIS vision, the need for it to continue to have a broad mandate and to implement the GDC’s commitments through the WSIS process, to mainstream ethics across the digital landscape. We talked a little bit about this and kind of the need to have holistic thinking, not to think in silos, and also to kind of bring in the issue around the impacts of big tech and the responsibility there. And then finally, we talked a little bit about the importance of kind of linking ethics and impact, and having really clear impacts as to what WSIS is delivering and what WSIS still needs to deliver. and that WSIS is just another angle to tackle some of these really complex digital challenges. So I think that really ties well and neatly with kind of all of the comments that we’ve heard from all of the tables. I’ve got lots of notes, so that’s really great. We might turn now to our next question, which is how can WSIS continue to help achieve the global development goals? And you can read that as the SDGs, or you could read that as broader global development objectives or regional development objectives. We’ll try and keep this one a little bit shorter, because I think this is kind of a little bit of a, what we would say in Australia, a rabbit hole. Basically like we could spend hours talking about this topic and not get to the conclusion. But have a think about perhaps what are some of those, maybe the top three, top three things that WSIS can do to help achieve the global development goals as you see it. Let’s give us about seven to ten minutes and then we’ll regroup and we’ll hear the top three from each group. So we’ll pause there, get the conversations going, continue to have lunch and we’ll regroup shortly. Cheers.

Audience: Thank you. Thank you. Even though I’m not a learning specialist, but I’ve heard a lot of things about WSIS, so what’s your view on it? I’ll be actually the architect of the team, not me, because this is what it’s all about. So as I was saying, my field is information, so I always believe, I’m always an advocate for libraries, so they deal with information. I believe that WSIS is more information, but that’s a small area. It deals with the broader aspect of it, so I think like WSIS is really relevant in all aspects, especially right now, navigating an information divide. The only trickery there is how to connect in their specialized field or research to understand what the public wants to find, whether it’s science, citizen science comes in, and one of those things that actually what we’re doing right now is speaking of people passing something, and it’s the bad news. We were saying that you should not just be good at research, but you should be good at science, so that’s kind of the core of our work, which I thought, I can’t really point out on global development goals, although I’m in humanities, but I think that information encompasses everything, so it’s there everywhere. It’s nice to be here at the international level, so I think an organization like WSIS is kind of playing together like this, so I can have them on board, so I think it’s nice to be here. That kind of ties in as well with the point we were talking about in the previous question, and perhaps an area of opportunity, is that by understanding, is that kind of open door that we can support. I wanted to emphasize on the how, about a lot of things that we’re talking about, is that how WSIS can actually bridge the researchers, the policy makers, to the general public, because our goal is to reach everyone, not only inclusivity, but all the diversities I can mention. This probably would be a platform, imagine being open to work. WSIS could be a platform to reach out to other communities. I like that, and WSIS is a good one. I think one of the strengths of WSIS really is brand recognition, right? It’s a good strategy to kind of showcase. It could mean SDGs, or it could mean a broader framework, so it’s a generic term. But I think the question is really saying, how can WSIS help to achieve development goals outside WSIS? It’s not going to help develop a goal in a general way. And so, in terms of where the conversation is going to go from here, we’ve talked about with the model of the whole climate, between people-centred, community-centred, business-centred, business stakeholders. Probably not relevant much. Thank you. We’ve talked about the measurement, measurable impact of how great practices, we’ve talked about with it being a platform to break down barriers, make it easier for people that are interested in development. So, yeah, I think that was typical. How many of you have come here? Are you aware where we’ve got to? Yeah, okay. I haven’t got to add anything on the wrong note. So, let’s throw him in the deep end. Oh, yeah, exactly. Well, of course we know the answers now. We’re just waiting to hear what you think about it. On a regional or a country level, I’m going to throw the question to you. How do you think, you see, I’m fairly new and I’m not really focusing on it, but how do you think we move forward to help achieve the global development goals, whether it’s SDGs or whatever? What WSIS does is very well known, what WSIS is perhaps very unknown, in the sense of everyone understands digital, everyone understands, and as a professional to provide for success is also to self-diagnose a threat of digital venture capital. The fact of the matter is that WSIS is quite enabling of that action, I think, in the ventures towards video output, not the kind of framing behind it, and so I think this is, in a sense, people like us that are interested in this type of framework and in searching the output and that’s where politicians and other people get interested with evolving those new computers down the school, whatever they’ve already invented, and they get access to knowledge that they might not have had, the skill of a technician, those are the types of projects and I think, for me, the opportunities for those in the digital context and on a digital level, and we need to develop together, and hopefully they are concentrated in every area, so we can go down, we can develop, we have this chance to develop, I hope that it will ignite WSIS’s discussion on some of these kind of, I don’t know, that’s my thing, it’s on the level of the… Yeah, because looking into the role of the strategies and how WSIS can achieve the global development goals is also, actually, also is important to look into the essence that there’s always a challenge within WSIS to be able to achieve their goals, to achieve how to strategize in order to fulfill their roles in global development. Just a thought, I was thinking that, like, yeah, I’m thinking, yeah, the first question I have in mind is, like, I’m doing this from my perspective, it’s not really very knowledgeable, like, I knew what had passed them, but the next thing that I do is, like, there are probably some challenges inside, so I like the idea of how we would pull down the fence, and so what I’m trying to do, with no, basically, bearing in mind that WSIS, I mean, I support, so I’m trying to teach myself as much as I can now, so that I can pass that on to some of the other groups, and these terms can educate their groups, these are more as citizens, we’re not talking about techie people, we’re talking about everyday people, yeah, but we can’t ask for things if you don’t know what they’re like, right, so like everyone, you need to know it first, so that I already, like, three months ago, I was doing a workshop, and this day, I’m basically in the Czech Republic, but the Czech Republic, but I knew more than they did, and that’s all we need to know, so, but actually, our, the scholars, we are a research institute, the scholars compose the resources of this institute are studying Middle Eastern and European languages, so that covers languages, history, and what not, international relations, and so forth, so this is my smile, it’s interesting, but it isn’t when you tell them, but they don’t understand that, so that’s what I’m trying to do now, but you need to know, yeah, I’m thinking, so that the word that comes up here is Czech Republic, you know, so, because I’m also trying to, I’m trying to say, you don’t have to know all of it, but we can think of our own processes, but we can play that role in the other things around, especially in the UN and other international organizations that have the gas, so, and yeah, so what happens is that there’s still elements of hallucination, but again, it might change, it could be changing, as I was saying right now, I did a study six months ago, and I don’t know if I can do it again, but it’s a center of differential intelligence, learning of itself, so, but yeah, that was the initial study, so, really, I mean, I’ve heard some people say, oh, I’m familiar with this process, but I can do this, I can do this, so, you know, I think, oh, speaking, identifying, oh, speaking, identifying, so, I think, oh, so, I suppose, I think, simplify is going to be a key word, I don’t know that, it’s not very accurate, I did, I think we spoke to say AI before, and it was not yet very accurate, but yeah, it retrieves information and subjects and summarizes, gives you the picture, so, it’s useful, but not accurate all the time, there’s a discrepancy between it, in a Latinized text, than in a non-Latinized script. And how is that, so maybe training, but on, I don’t think, where are you from, which one, I’m thinking, if my colleagues, some of my colleagues are studying about Iran, no, I don’t think so. Last 30 seconds. start to gather your thoughts and we’ll regroup shortly.

Joyce Chen: Okay, I don’t want to interrupt the conversation which is going really, really well, but we might regroup on this question now. Hear what people have to say. Hear what their top three ideas are. We might first turn to Joyce’s table since we’ll go in the reverse order than the last question. So Joyce, top three for this group. We might just regroup and hear from this first group here. So Joyce, go ahead. Thanks Will. So I think we had a lot of ideas. I think our top three was one, how to make WSIS more connected between the policy level and layer and on-ground realities. So making that connection. We had one idea which was train the trainers program, capacity building, which brought us to the second point which is that there should be more capacity building at the grassroots level. The third one was to have much better public outreach and communications. We had some very good, sort of very encouraging feedback on the WSIS website. That’s a, you know, yes, very constructive feedback on that, that the i2 WSIS team have agreed to take away and improve next year. And then we, so these are the top three, but some other points that I think are worth just also bringing up was that, of course, continued support for the SDGs. Unfortunately, we know that that’s not a very good term these days, so how to still speak about the SDGs, but in a more nuanced way. We also talked about, you know, what is the model of development that we’re talking about? When you have development goals, but first of all, you have to first unpack what is development. Who is it for? Should it be people-centered or policy-driven, etc., etc.? So those were some of the sub points that we also discussed.

William Lee: Yeah, great. Wow. This table’s been really hard at work and on fire. I’m really loving this kind of policy versus on ground kind of concept. And obviously, you know, the capacity building piece is really, really important as well. And I think that’s kind of come through in a number of interventions so far. And I feel sorry for our ITU colleagues who have got constructive feedback. But I think no doubt every year we improve the WSIS Forum. So I think that sounds really good. I’m going to hand over to this table now. Isabel, what have you got for us?

Isabelle Lois: Many things. Many, many things. No, so we had very, very rich conversations on this question. I think it’s a great question. Maybe I can start with sort of a first answer that’s an overarching, I think, answer to the question, which is if we continue to really implement and work on the action lines, then we will be able to achieve at least part of the global development goals. So I think that’s sort of the main message. But then we went off. of course, into many more details, but I think that’s a core idea. So one of the things that we have to keep in mind when trying to implement the WSIS action lines is new ideas or new risks. I mean, the pace and the rhythm that AI is entering our world, it is changing how the action lines can be implemented, how they affect different communities. So I think that’s one of the points. Maybe that would go into trying to regulate or have a safer use of AI. Another point is sort of how can we make sure that the digital divides are not growing even larger, but working on reducing them and keeping that in mind as one of the central points. We also had some discussions on environment and climate with the fact that, yes, this is also one of the WSIS goals, but we could do more work. And throughout the entire implementation of the WSIS action lines and commitments, we should think also about the environmental aspect. We talked about monitoring or being able to sort of evaluate how we’re advancing on these goals to see what have we done, what changes do we need to make, has what we have done so far been useful or not, and have a stronger link with the SDGs. I think that’s one of the questions we raise a bit around the table on the SDGs go in one direction and how WSIS goals were created or placed before. How could we have a better integration between both? So there is a mapping, but there’s not really a thought of a joint implementation. So this is maybe something we could think about. And then we had a few great points focusing also on thinking about the local communities that are actually affected by the work we’re doing. So one part would be learning from what is happening in the different countries, maybe having a transparent reporting on what is happening in one country and that being able to be shared with the others. And also in that reporting, not only consulting the authorities or the governments from the country, but actually the affected communities and bring that perspective into our discussions. And then we questioned a bit, is it enough for us to sit around the table and talk about those who are concerned or should we include them into the conversation? And the answer is yes, we should include them into the conversation and not just talk about them. So I think that was one of the main points. We also talked very briefly on the distinctions or the difficulty of being able to talk about connectivity or internet access or the digital questions when some don’t even have access to electricity because if there’s no access to the bases, then we can’t even work on the rest. So I think we have to remember to start at the bottom and assure that and then we can continue to evolve. I hope I have summarized the points well enough, but it was a very interesting conversation.

William Lee: Great. Thank you. Some really interesting points there as well, the challenge of new technology. I think it’s been a common theme so far. Environment being a new thing that I think we’ve heard so far today, but I think really obviously really, really important as well as technology evolves. I hate to see the power bill from that AI for Good conference, I think, all those robots. Monitoring and evaluation really important as well, links to the sustainable development goals, and I like the point about getting the basics right and how we can use digital to help close those gaps. Jimson, what’s your table come up with?

Jimson Olufuye: I’d like to spread my legs. I have to exercise. All right. Thank you, Willem. Yes, three key points on how WSIS can continue to help with the global development goals. So number one is that we have a matrix already, a very good mapping, WSIS to SDG, WSIS action lines and targets to SDG. We need to use this framework very well, and in fact, maybe there should be some form of note on it, a recommendation that there should be reference to it. But the question is, where will it be achieved? Because you cannot just have a mapping. Yes, you have a mapping, but where would the actual implementation take place? So we all agree at the national level, at the sub-national level, local level, communities level. And that takes us to response number two, and that IGF as a forum where stakeholders come together to do note-taking reports and exchange ideas, should be strengthened along with these NRIs, the national regional IGFs, and let them move to sub-national IGFs, maybe at the state of performance. level, at the local level, at even small community level, okay? So you need to be nosedive to that level so that we can have results-oriented processes. Because we are talking here in Geneva, so will it end here? So if you want results, it must be at that local level. Then number three, we recognize that our development organization like ITU, they’re doing a lot of work, truly doing a lot of work. UNESCO, UNDP, UNIDO, UNECA, they’re doing a lot of work. So we want them to strengthen their engagement, okay, their effort, okay, involving all stakeholders. Actually, personally, I was impressed with Dr. Gelasi the other day, who was talking about how they achieved the UNESCO latest policy documentation, where all stakeholders, big things were out there, and everybody was happy at the end. So something like that needs to continue to happen, bringing all stakeholders towards the achievement of the sustainable development goal.

William Lee: Thank you very much. Great, thank you. Some really important, powerful points. I really liked the idea of local implementation, local action, strengthening the UN system, strengthening the engagement with stakeholders, really, really important as well. And how we actually turn kind of ideas into actions, both through WSIS and the SDG process, I think really, really, really powerful, and ties in well with the points that the other tables have made as well. As customary, I will now come to my table. And I think, as per the last question, a lot of the points that we talked about also came up on our table. Our first point was around buy-in. WSIS has a lot of buy-in and political will, a lot of visibility, and I think we’ve had about 60 ministers or something around here today. So how do we leverage that? How do we leverage this open door with everyone and take that forward into supporting other development objectives? Like some of the other groups talked about, we talked about measurable impact. How do we turn words into action? How do we create those practical opportunities? And that using the WSIS framework is a really important way of doing that. And then finally, how do we use WSIS as a platform to break down barriers? How do we use people’s interest in digital technology to translate that into practical development solutions? And I think that ties in really well with the points here around how do we get the basics right and use digital as a way of connecting people basic needs into digital needs. Cool, let’s move to the third question. Third question, how can the WSIS implementation mechanisms like UNGASS, which is a body of all the different UN agencies involved in WSIS, WSIS Stock Taking, that’s the 15,000 projects that the ITU has been handing out certificates for this week if you’ve been to one of the prize ceremonies, the WSIS Forum, that’s where we are today, the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum, which met a couple of weeks ago in Oslo. And if you haven’t called past the IGF booth, I would encourage you to do so. Partnership or measuring ICT for development be strengthened. So in effect, this question is asking how do we take the implementation mechanisms that we have in WSIS and make them stronger? Perhaps let’s have another sort of seven to 10 minute chat about this question. Maybe let’s stick. with this theme of top three. I think this is kind of working pretty well for us. So let’s stay there. Let’s see where we get to, and we’ll regroup in about seven or 10 minutes, see where we are, and then we’ll regroup about the whole conversation from today, which has been excellent so far. Cool, let’s start the conversation.

Audience: Oh, thank you. Yeah, just curious to know how many UN agencies are involved in WSIS, and UNGIS, it stands for what? I can answer the second. Yeah. Sure, I can try and answer, and maybe other colleagues who know more can also put up their hands. But UNGIS is the United Nations Group on the Information Society. So in 2005, part of the Tunis Agenda, everyone agreed that this body would be created. It’s a fairly informal body. It brings together all of the UN agencies responsible for the WSIS, so the action line leads, the co-facilitators of the action lines, and now I believe a whole bunch of other agencies that are just interested in supporting the objectives of the WSIS. I want to say 50 UN agencies, I’m looking, 30, 30, 39, there we go, we got the right number. 39 UN agencies involved in UNGIS. So basically, for the purposes of the question, how do we strengthen, this is kind of the coordinating mechanism. So how do we strengthen coordination among all the UN agencies? Through this body or other parts of the system as well. Great, no, no worries. I look forward to some really exciting answers ahead. Let’s go. So when we talk about measuring IPC with development teams, we need to use data in order to measure what it is that we’re achieving. How do we measure accomplishing whatever goals we set for a given day? Is it a number of classes you need to hold? Is it grades to hold your classes? How long are those classes? Or is it the skill that people have developed as a result of going through this? I don’t think that’s the gist of the question. Sorry to interrupt. But isn’t it more about the UN system and how people can work better together? But part of that is also asking the question of how are we measuring our success in what way? I think the point is that it’s a long time to make. If we can’t measure what the message is that all these processes have, how do we know what’s strengthened? How do we know what’s weakened? So I think part of the problem is the measurement problem. More because we’re all talking about the policy impact on both projects and development. So if you don’t have high-level commerce to that effect, you still have to be able to measure. Okay. So isn’t the answer then clear-cut the eyes for each process? Like where do WSIS want to be? Where does the GDC want to be in five or ten years’ time? So yet there needs to be regular assessment and review processes, right? There are some measurements, for example, that are existing but may not be on the east map. They’re actually on the south side. So, for example, GSA may not have internet penetration or mobile penetration. How robust that information is, I’m not sure the data accurately says that. The ITU also has a lot of indexes, which may or may not be used. But I know governments reference the ITU indexes a lot. So, for example, they have to audit us on, I can’t remember the exact date, but it has to do with resilience. Measuring the digital resilience is important. There is something that’s like that. So I think the broader problem is that all these mechanisms don’t know how to communicate the outcomes of their work very well. I think there is a lot of overlap and I think there is a working in silence. So everybody does their own thing. And it is a little bit of protectionism of each agency. They’re funded by donors and they have to show that they are doing more than everybody else. So there’s more competition and collaboration, like industry in a way. So they’re fighting for survival. I mean, when you think about 40 agencies involved, my God. Can you imagine 40 agencies talking to each other in a meaningful way? You know, I asked that question a few months ago. I mean, I think it’s wonderful. I think, you know, the whole process to really fundamentally decide to make the right work is the right work that we want to do. And I’m hearing voices in my environment. And I think it should be everybody. That’s me, as opposed to everybody else. But I don’t know if there’s a standard agreement on that. You know, perhaps the question on how we can strengthen WSIS implementation also ties in with UN reform as such. Like you can’t really separate one from the other. It’s really, it’s above my pay grade, right? But there are discussions that perhaps… There are discussions being had about merging, for example, IOM, International Organization of Migration, and UNHCR, humanitarian stuff. So there’s a lot of things, working with refugees or something. So there is a case bill to be made for the cuts to merge or similar mandates. I mean, they probably would not be happy with that. They are doing that. Yes. Right now, for IOM and UNHCR, they are drafting the report on in-state conflict zones together. We share the insight that we had previously working for UNHCR. So as a start, we can receive the information from both IOM, UNHCR, and all the UNRWA staff who are offering every morning and every few hours if there’s an emergency. So right now, we are sharing the information and we try to align our messages, but it’s still… My point being that there probably is similar people doing a similar job in the two organizations. So sharing is not enough. Yes. And you need to get a part of them and give that work to one group of people. We don’t need two sets of people doing the same thing. It’s great. And also, I wanted to pick up on that point about the idea of sustainability. I think the sustainability of the mechanisms themselves in an environment where there is… greatly reduce funding, especially to fund them from, you know, country to country contributions. And our friend America putting out everything. But we don’t talk about it. We don’t talk about it very much. I know, specific to the IGF, the internet government, again, if you have not yet, that familiar with that, go and look back at the recording. So we have talked a lot about the IGF in terms of how we could strengthen accessibility. Like the WSIS Forum that we’re in now, it is actually about free enrollment. And it’s kind of always at the brink of collapse. But the community bands together to make sure it’s always happy. So there is talk about, for example, the government benefits of the IGF and the outcome of the WSIS Forum. And the community is also now discussing, well, what do we mean when we say 100 million ratings? How will it affect the funding? How will it affect the bottom-up agenda setting nature of the IGF, et cetera? And so, I would imagine that we would have very similar questions. Obamacare, for example, it is a body of coordination amongst the UN agencies. But if all the UN agencies are getting funding cut, then is there going to be much time dedicated then to work on Obamacare, et cetera, et cetera, right? There’s a sustainability problem that the UN is facing. We’re not going to have an effect on all these things from what’s going on at the top. So the UN is celebrating 80 years next year. But this celebration is really a cost-cutting exercise. So we’re now, yeah, so it’s two ways of looking at it. But yeah, so they’re using it as a way to inform, because we have a lot of criticism for the way it functions, the purpose, blah, blah, blah, a lot of overlap. But yeah, sustainability is key. I mean, how many of these agencies can do something? And even you’re turning a lot to even donors. You’re getting donor fatigue. And even the people on the street where you’re rattling tins and getting, you know, all the time, you know, this, this, and this. Even, you know, I find I’m getting annoyed with it because they can’t get it from above. They’re coming down now to you. So you’re getting taxed all the time. It’s a ripple effect for levels, and it’s going to affect everything. So it’ll be interesting to what happens with these reforms. That will be key to a lot of things. I think when we talk about, at least as an organizational organization, I think we always, when we start talking about reforms and changes, we then also have to talk about agility. So agility to me is code word for, we have that budget that we need to do more. How can we do better? How can we do better? Being agile, nimble, being able to adapt. Use AI. Oh! Oh! Maybe you’ll disappear from the table. Yeah. You’ll be replaced by bots. Exactly. I’ll just go to the toilet real quick. Okay. Yeah, it’s just having that ripple effect. Yeah. And maybe more horizontal structure. Because a lot of UN works fall down. You tell the person under you. You tell the person under you. They don’t talk. So. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So. So. Yeah. Information sharing is important. Avoiding duplication. Streamlining. A lot of them do work on similar things. Somehow bringing, coordinating, building coherent thread that brings different inputs together. I mean, the US has done it a lot. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the UN does it as reverse of the work of civil society. UN doesn’t want to deal with a houndred thousand NGOs. It wants you to form a coalition, fight it out amongst yourself, organise your thoughts, and just give us one more. That’s what they want. So in some ways, we’re asking for the same the other way around. That someone how to bring all that together, coalesce, filter it all through, distill it, and come up with the key nuggets we really need. I mean, I’m being really critical in a way. There are so many assistant director generals in the UN system. And I have no idea what most of them do, who they are, what they do. And there are more assistant director generals than there are departments. I mean, who are they? There’s a whole questionnaire structure, which has worked nicely when they give lots of money. I think a lot of them are now gone. So there’s a lot of different issues. And I’ll pick up your point on rewriting. Because I think the UN, as a system, suffers from the weight of its predecessor, because it doesn’t like to let things go. Like when a process has been started, then there are new processes being started, but they won’t contact the ones that you have updated or anything like that. And so the UN is kind of burgeoning from… Constantly making new processes. But not actually making more reductions. This whole AI stream that’s just flourished in the last five years, it wasn’t like that before? But why whoever did that didn’t think, well, the YCIS architecture has been working for 20 years, so let’s build on that, let’s expand that, let’s think, why do we have to go in different streams? And I wasn’t involved in the 20 years. I’ve only just discovered YCIS by accident, as I said to you, because I was coming for the AI summit. And I just happened to… At the same time, oh, I wonder what this is. But I see now, from my point of view, it’s really, really important. And we have not been part of it, because we don’t know about it. Relating to what you mentioned, is there not a different kind of discourse that you want to work on? I mean, from the IT unit, you could say it’s working, but I don’t think it’s working.

William Lee: now on this final on this final question. I’ve heard lots of good points, lots of good conversation. Perhaps we look to kick off now and then we can maybe finish a few minutes early today so that everyone can get on with their afternoons. But I might turn to to Isabel and and this table here to hear thoughts

Isabelle Lois: on question three. Many thoughts. No, so we discussed a bit. First we discussed what is WSIS implementation and all of these mechanisms. I think maybe I will add something that we didn’t discuss but I find that it’s a context that maybe will be useful for also the summaries of the other tables. I think in the WSIS sort of architecture there’s part of it that’s implementing the action lines and the commitments we’ve made and then we also have the review process. So I think these different sort of initiatives and mechanisms that are here on the question are looking at the sort of day-to-day implementation. Who’s doing what? Where are we working? How are we highlighting what is being done? But then we also have the implementation part where it’s reviewing how these processes are actually delivering on their work and this is one of the questions that came up time and time again in in our discussions is we’re trying to implement WSIS in the best way but we have to make sure that the mechanisms that we’re using are efficient and for that we have the CSTD which is one of the spaces where we can review how is implementation going? Is it going in the right direction or not? And I think it might it is a part of the WSIS family that is not used well enough and this is my opinion. This was not discussed but I just wanted to add that as one of the sort of points that we can we can think of. And now with the WSIS 2020 review we can look at the whole system. So what we discussed more importantly in the group was looking at how these different mechanisms are working together or not, how much of the work being done in UNGIS or the WSIS stock taking are like fitting into each other, how much are we using the IGF for example and the WSIS forum in the best way, how much are we complementing the works done in one part of the system and the other, and that there is there absolutely room for improvement and there should be more of a performance review of these different mechanisms to maybe question how they’re working, re-looking at the structure etc. One of the points we raised is on UNGIS and maybe updating UNGIS to fit with sort of the new realities, having a strong role for some of the partners that may be part of UNGIS but in a observer status or that are not part of it at all and maybe should be included. I’m also looking at the other points, we once again went back to our point of inclusion which is one of the messages I’ve sort of come up with on the three questions of making sure that even in the implementation mechanisms that we have, that we’re also including the target sort of communities and the targets of who are we doing all of this work for and how are we making sure that within UNGIS or within the stock taking or the WSIS forum, the people at the table, the people who are speaking are the affected communities that we are trying to deliver these goals for or these principles for. And so this was one of the questions that was also raised in when we are looking at the performance sort of review of all these mechanisms, can we also look at who is being part of them and making sure that we are inclusive

William Lee: on that level as well. Great, I love that. I’m going to summarize that as build back better which I think is great, updating UNGIS, who’s part of it, inclusion. and using all of the elements of the WSIS family to get the outcomes that we’re looking for. Jimson, what do you got on for us?

Jimson Olufuye: All right. It’s been very thought provoking session. Lot of ideas. We first said plus one to our ideas, earlier ideas about need to focus the implementation at the national, the regional, sub-regional, sub-national, state, provisional, local, or community level. We need to push it, focus more to that end. Yes. Then number two, that there should be a quarterly engagement process for all these stakeholders listed. Quarterly, instead of annual. Because of the urgency of 2030 targets. Then we need to ensure that stronger visibility. This is connected to the earlier message in any way. The visibility here needs to be possibly documented so that it can, government, especially from developing countries, can see it in the document and say, oh, this is part of our responsibility. And we stakeholder as well, it will empower us to be able to say, okay, government see paragraph, something that said we should need to be doing this thing more regularly. And then there is need to establish liaison from each of these mechanism, liaison, so that without liaison, there can be a focal group of all the liaisons. Okay, maybe IGF, for example, we have a head like Chengetai, who always be at Hungi’s meeting, or maybe he’s a representative, or be at Wisi’s, vice versa. When IGF-2 Mark is meeting, we must have somebody for measurement of social partnership in liaison, in what they are meeting. And then these liaisons can also be constituted as say, some of our committee or something to exchange notes, and then take back again to their constituencies. So as well, that’s way to strengthen the process. Then also, that’s lastly now, when it comes to measuring, because if you cannot measure something, you cannot manage it according to management principle. You need to be able to measure properly. And I got the feedback yesterday, because there was a meeting of the measurement group and I was seeing that, wow, there wasn’t really a lot of measurement going on, really sound measurement in terms of, say, this relate to this, that relate to this. And there was a challenge on how to go about many things. I was just looking at it. Look, you can get top-level consultants. Let them budget, get top-level consultants. So that’s what we are recommending, that in terms of measuring on specific areas, get consultants, top-level consultants to work on this thing, instead of the agency themselves trying to do it themselves. So though the agency can do it, they can serve as a review. They can actually review, again, what they’ve done. But let top consultant be engaged as part of the partnership in the process. Thank you.

William Lee: Right, really good point there as well. The quality of engagement, documenting things, being transparent about what’s going on, having liaison offices and encouraging a two-way street. And I really liked the point about making sure we have the right experts offering the right solutions. Joyce, what do you have for us?

Joyce Chen: Yes, so we talked about how the different mechanisms could measure data and success indicators a lot better. And basically trying to understand how the different agencies are meeting their targets and how we could improve the way that successes are being communicated. Because a lot of the time, there’s so much work being done that all these thousands of projects that are happening, but then once we get to the end of the exercise, we don’t communicate back. What those outcomes were. So we had a bit of discussion around that. We also talked about how. So, a lot of the UN agencies are working in silos and, you know, there is, there tends to be protectionism within the agencies itself. And so, we wanted to see more collaboration instead of competition between the agencies and as well more horizontal structures, such as the UNGASS, I think, is a good example of that. And we spent a lot of time talking about UN reform because of the current environment, you know, budgets are being cut, there is a lot of, there is reduced funding from voluntary contributions and how that has really hurt the system in a way, but at the same time, it is an opportunity because the UN can now be more creative, it can be more agile, it can think about how to be more fit for purpose and streamline its work, as opposed to trying to do everything for everyone. And so, we spent a lot of time talking about sustainability and, you know, especially as funding is drying up, and the need to build human resources. So, we have friends from the ITU with this team here. We would hate to see them being replaced by AI, for example, or by an algorithm. And so, the UN really needs to invest in building its human resources. And so, basically, just all these things in summary is how the UN and its different mechanisms can coalesce all these different efforts and amalgamate. And then finally, why not just use the WSIS architecture, the existing one, for new work streams like AI that has come to the fore in recent years, instead of having a proliferation of work streams and then having this reluctance to reduce the ones that are outdated or no longer relevant. So, yeah. Great.

William Lee: Another really good set of examples, talking about the issues of silos. I really like collaboration, not competition, as kind of a concept. Sustainability, really important, and reusing what we have and making it work better, which I think ties in really nicely with some of the points the other groups have made. Just briefly for this table, we talked again about reusing projects. We focused just a little bit on the stock-taking database, not wanting to reinvent the wheel, but actually using the projects in that and connecting people to areas where there are projects and there are success stories. Why AI for Good and the WSIS Forum are together, we kind of mused about that a little bit, and that there needs to be kind of a strategic partnership or a strategic vision to take that forward. We must strengthen outreach to other groups that aren’t part of the WSIS, and we talked about the fact that perhaps a little bit of anarchy is not a bad thing. We don’t need to kind of structure everything, and perhaps ideas do come from places that are perhaps unexpected, but that we need to capture all of that energy and enthusiasm. And then finally around kind of the challenge of new technologies. In our case, we talked a little bit about quantum, but I think that could apply to a range of technologies, how we bring in new players, new relationships, new areas of interest and focus. So that has been a marathon, nearly two hours of great conversation. So first of all, a round of applause to everyone who has joined us today. I’m not gonna try and attempt to summarize that really extensive conversation. My notes look like I’ve been at the doctor’s office, but it has been really, really good, and I know our colleagues from the ITU have been capturing all of these thoughts and essences, which has been really good. I would encourage. you all to take all of these great ideas and conversations out into that wider WSIS world, to participate in the review process this year, to share these ideas and other ideas you might have had to the review process as well. We have on the screen, if you want to share further thoughts, please do send an email to our ITU colleagues. I wanna thank our three table moderators, Joyce, Isabel and Jimson, and obviously wanna thank our ITU hosts as well. I’ll hand over the floor to you in case there’s any closing remarks you wanna make, but thank you very much, everyone.

Participant: So it was wonderful, it was a wonderful experience. We had these knowledge cafes for five days for the entire school. Hello, yeah. Okay, so I would like to thank all of you, and it was a wonderful experience here. We had these knowledge cafes for the entire week, and we had great inputs from all the participants, and if you can, you can send us your inputs, whatever you collected from here to these mail IDs. Otherwise, if you have written it on a paper, you can submit it to me, I’ll collect it, and yeah, it was great. It was fun having all of you here, and thank you, see you next year, and see you around.

Jennifer Chung: We welcome all of you to join us at the closing at four in room C, and thank you so much for supporting VERSUS. We are still gonna be working harder and harder next year, and yeah, we will bring more digital collaboration to all of us, thank you.

William Lee: Thanks very much. A couple of housekeeping on the way out. you could grab one of the boxes and put them at the back. That will just help our colleagues a lot. And for the moderators, if you wanna come up and let’s get a bit of a happy snap from the session, that would be great, along with our ITU colleagues. I don’t know. I’m just gonna change it. Excellent. Okay, thank you. Ooh. Yay! It’s my own smile, and that kept me calm. I think, hey, there’s my name, I did it again. Uh-huh. I did it again. Ah. Okay. So that was just my question. There’s a lot of questions in the Q&A. There’s a whole lot of questions. I know. Okay. I’m with both the state employee and the municipal employee. Making it work. I can speak. So I, like, you know, thank you all for coming and this all has been great things. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so thank you. And thank you. Right. Thank you, but they emerged out. Oh, is thatamento, that’s right. That’s it, thank you. All right, thank you. Excuse me, yeah. Excuse me. We’re gonna have a final call. Please stand by. All right, one final photo. One final group photo. All right, let’s look at, please look at the official photographer, she for this session. Oh, yeah, please. Maybe if we turn it off, it’s better. All right. So, thank you.

Agreement points

Need for greater inclusion and participation of underrepresented communities

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Isabelle Lois
– Joyce Chen
– Participant

Arguments

Need to attract all categories of stakeholders including more private sector, youth, and people with special needs for meaningful participation

Include affected communities in conversations rather than just talking about them, with transparent reporting from countries

Importance of full participation by underrepresented and marginalized communities, including indigenous voices

WSIS should provide childcare facilities to enable broader participation

Summary

All speakers agreed that WSIS needs to dramatically expand participation beyond current attendees to include marginalized communities, people with disabilities, indigenous voices, parents with children, and other underrepresented groups through concrete accessibility measures and direct inclusion in conversations.

Topics

Human rights | Development

WSIS implementation must focus on local, national, and community levels rather than just international forums

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Use existing WSIS-SDG mapping framework but focus implementation at national, sub-national, and community levels

Need for train-the-trainers programs and grassroots capacity building to connect policy level with on-ground realities

Summary

Both speakers emphasized that WSIS discussions at international level are insufficient and that real implementation and impact must happen at grassroots, community, and national levels through capacity building and local engagement.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Need to integrate new technologies like AI into existing WSIS architecture rather than creating separate processes

Speakers

– Isabelle Lois
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

WSIS architecture is robust and functions well but needs to integrate new challenges like AI, data, cyber security, and information integrity

Use existing WSIS architecture for new work streams like AI instead of creating separate processes

Summary

Both speakers agreed that rather than proliferating new processes, emerging technologies like AI should be integrated into the proven WSIS framework to avoid duplication and leverage existing structures.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

UN agencies need better coordination and less competition/silos

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Isabelle Lois
– Joyce Chen
– Audience

Arguments

Create liaison positions between different mechanisms (IGF, UNGIS, WSIS Forum) to improve coordination

Update UNGIS to fit new realities and include partners currently in observer status or not included

Need more collaboration instead of competition between UN agencies, with horizontal structures and reduced silos

Address overlap and duplication among the 39 UN agencies involved in UNGIS

Summary

All speakers identified the need to break down silos between UN agencies and WSIS mechanisms, improve coordination through liaison positions and updated structures, and reduce competition in favor of collaboration.

Topics

Development

Need for better measurement, monitoring and evaluation of WSIS outcomes

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Isabelle Lois
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Engage top-level consultants for proper measurement and evaluation rather than agencies doing it themselves

Perform regular reviews of implementation mechanisms to ensure efficiency and inclusivity

Need for better measurement of data and success indicators with improved communication of outcomes

Summary

All speakers agreed that WSIS lacks adequate measurement and evaluation systems, requiring external expertise, regular performance reviews, and better communication of results to demonstrate impact and guide improvements.

Topics

Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of maintaining and strengthening multi-stakeholder approaches while ensuring UN agencies remain engaged and that human rights principles remain central to WSIS processes.

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Need to strengthen engagement of UN development organizations while involving all stakeholders

WSIS should continue being rights-based and human rights-centered while maintaining multi-stakeholder nature

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers identified the critical need to increase WSIS visibility and awareness, particularly at national and regional levels, through enhanced outreach and capacity building efforts.

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– William Lee

Arguments

Need for more capacity building, outreach, and public awareness about WSIS processes

WSIS Plus 20 review should include provisions for greater visibility at country and regional levels

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognized the need to address fundamental infrastructure and resource challenges before advancing to more complex digital solutions, acknowledging current funding constraints while emphasizing the importance of human capacity.

Speakers

– Isabelle Lois
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Address basic infrastructure needs like electricity access before advancing to digital connectivity

Address sustainability challenges due to reduced funding while maintaining human resources investment

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Unexpected consensus

Criticism of UN system inefficiencies and need for reform

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– Audience

Arguments

Address sustainability challenges due to reduced funding while maintaining human resources investment

Address overlap and duplication among the 39 UN agencies involved in UNGIS

Explanation

Despite being participants in a UN-organized forum, speakers openly criticized UN system inefficiencies, funding challenges, and excessive bureaucracy. This frank acknowledgment of systemic problems from within the system itself was unexpected and suggests genuine commitment to reform rather than defensive posturing.

Topics

Development | Economic

WSIS visibility problem compared to newer initiatives

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Audience
– William Lee

Arguments

Why is it that AI for good is more popular than WSIS?

WSIS lacks visibility compared to AI for Good summit despite being the ‘grandfather’ of digital processes

WSIS Plus 20 review should include provisions for greater visibility at country and regional levels

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus among speakers that WSIS, despite being the foundational digital governance process, has poor visibility compared to newer initiatives like AI for Good. This self-critical assessment from WSIS participants themselves was surprising and indicates genuine concern about the process’s relevance and impact.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Need for practical childcare and accessibility support

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Participant

Arguments

Provide support for people with disabilities including sign language translation and childcare facilities

WSIS should provide childcare facilities to enable broader participation

Explanation

The specific focus on practical barriers like childcare and disability support was unexpected in a high-level policy forum, showing that speakers recognized the need to address basic participation barriers rather than just policy-level issues.

Topics

Human rights | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

There was strong consensus on the need for greater inclusion, local implementation, better coordination among UN agencies, improved measurement systems, and integration of new technologies into existing WSIS structures. Speakers also agreed on the need for increased visibility and capacity building.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive criticism. The agreement was particularly strong on structural and procedural improvements, suggesting that while speakers support WSIS’s mission, they recognize significant implementation challenges that need addressing. The consensus indicates a mature, self-reflective community willing to acknowledge problems and work toward solutions, which bodes well for meaningful reform of the WSIS process.

Different viewpoints

Approach to UN agency coordination – reform vs. strengthening existing structures

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– Isabelle Lois

Arguments

Need more collaboration instead of competition between UN agencies, with horizontal structures and reduced silos

Update UNGIS to fit new realities and include partners currently in observer status or not included

Summary

Joyce Chen advocates for fundamental restructuring to reduce silos and competition between agencies, while Isabelle Lois focuses on updating existing structures like UNGIS to include more partners. Joyce emphasizes the need to break down competitive barriers, while Isabelle suggests working within current frameworks but expanding participation.

Topics

Development

Implementation measurement approach – external consultants vs. internal capacity building

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Engage top-level consultants for proper measurement and evaluation rather than agencies doing it themselves

Need for train-the-trainers programs and grassroots capacity building to connect policy level with on-ground realities

Summary

Jimson advocates for hiring external top-level consultants to handle measurement and evaluation, believing agencies shouldn’t measure their own work. Joyce emphasizes building internal capacity through train-the-trainers programs and grassroots approaches. This represents different philosophies about whether expertise should be external or internally developed.

Topics

Development

Unexpected differences

Frequency of engagement processes

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

Establish quarterly engagement processes instead of annual ones due to urgency of 2030 targets

Explanation

This was an unexpected specific disagreement with current practice. While other speakers discussed improving coordination and engagement, only Jimson specifically challenged the annual meeting cycle, proposing quarterly meetings. This represents a more radical departure from established WSIS rhythms than other speakers suggested, and no other speaker directly addressed meeting frequency.

Topics

Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high levels of agreement on fundamental goals (inclusion, better coordination, local implementation) with disagreements primarily focused on implementation methods and approaches rather than objectives. The main tensions were between reform-oriented vs. evolution-oriented approaches to improving WSIS mechanisms.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high consensus on goals but different preferred pathways. The disagreements are constructive and complementary rather than conflicting, suggesting potential for synthesis of approaches. The implications are positive for WSIS development as the shared vision provides a strong foundation for moving forward, with the different approaches offering multiple pathways that could be pursued simultaneously rather than requiring choice between alternatives.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of maintaining and strengthening multi-stakeholder approaches while ensuring UN agencies remain engaged and that human rights principles remain central to WSIS processes.

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Need to strengthen engagement of UN development organizations while involving all stakeholders

WSIS should continue being rights-based and human rights-centered while maintaining multi-stakeholder nature

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers identified the critical need to increase WSIS visibility and awareness, particularly at national and regional levels, through enhanced outreach and capacity building efforts.

Speakers

– Joyce Chen
– William Lee

Arguments

Need for more capacity building, outreach, and public awareness about WSIS processes

WSIS Plus 20 review should include provisions for greater visibility at country and regional levels

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognized the need to address fundamental infrastructure and resource challenges before advancing to more complex digital solutions, acknowledging current funding constraints while emphasizing the importance of human capacity.

Speakers

– Isabelle Lois
– Joyce Chen

Arguments

Address basic infrastructure needs like electricity access before advancing to digital connectivity

Address sustainability challenges due to reduced funding while maintaining human resources investment

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Key takeaways

WSIS architecture is robust and has functioned well for 20 years but needs to integrate new challenges like AI, data governance, cybersecurity, and information integrity

There is urgent need for greater inclusion of underrepresented communities, including indigenous voices, people with disabilities, and marginalized groups in WSIS processes

Implementation must shift from high-level policy discussions to practical action at national, sub-national, and community levels to achieve meaningful impact

WSIS lacks visibility compared to newer initiatives like AI for Good summit despite being the foundational framework for digital governance

The existing WSIS-SDG mapping framework should be leveraged but requires focused implementation at local levels with measurable outcomes

UN agencies involved in WSIS (39 total) suffer from silos, competition rather than collaboration, and sustainability challenges due to reduced funding

Capacity building, outreach, and public awareness about WSIS processes need significant strengthening to engage broader stakeholder participation

The multi-stakeholder nature of WSIS should be maintained and strengthened while ensuring rights-based, human rights-centered approaches

Resolutions and action items

Participants encouraged to share additional thoughts via email to ITU colleagues for inclusion in outcome document

Feedback and discussions to be captured in summary for UNGA review in December 2025

Constructive feedback on WSIS website to be taken by ITU team for improvements next year

Establish quarterly engagement processes instead of annual ones due to urgency of 2030 targets

Create liaison positions between different WSIS mechanisms (IGF, UNGIS, WSIS Forum) to improve coordination

Engage top-level consultants for proper measurement and evaluation of WSIS implementation

Develop train-the-trainers programs and grassroots capacity building initiatives

Update UNGIS structure to fit new realities and include currently excluded partners

Unresolved issues

How to effectively integrate Global Digital Compact (GDC) commitments with WSIS architecture without duplication

Lack of clear indicators and measurement systems to assess WSIS implementation progress and impact

Sustainability challenges for WSIS mechanisms due to reduced UN funding and donor fatigue

How to address the visibility gap between WSIS and newer initiatives like AI for Good summit

Coordination challenges among 39 UN agencies involved in UNGIS with overlapping mandates

How to ensure meaningful participation of affected communities rather than just talking about them

Integration of new technologies like quantum computing into existing WSIS framework

Addressing basic infrastructure needs (electricity access) before advancing digital connectivity goals

Suggested compromises

Use existing WSIS architecture for new work streams like AI instead of creating separate processes to avoid proliferation

Combine policy-level discussions with on-ground implementation through strengthened IGF and National/Regional IGFs

Balance the need for structure with allowing some ‘anarchy’ for unexpected ideas and innovation to emerge

Leverage WSIS political buy-in and visibility to support broader development objectives beyond just digital goals

Create joint implementation approaches between WSIS and SDG processes using existing mapping frameworks

Establish horizontal collaboration structures between UN agencies while maintaining their distinct mandates

Provide childcare facilities and accessibility support to reduce barriers to participation while maintaining professional focus

Why is it that AI for good is more popular than WSIS? Actually, I went to AI for good. The place is massive. Oh, my. It’s massive, this one. If you haven’t been there, you have to be. It’s massive, this one. So why is it so? Because WSIS is the grandfather. WSIS is the main, main superset. And AI for good just came.

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Reason

This comment exposed a fundamental visibility and relevance problem with WSIS despite its foundational role in digital governance. It highlighted the paradox that newer initiatives can overshadow established frameworks, raising questions about communication, engagement strategies, and institutional effectiveness.

Impact

This observation became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with multiple tables picking up on the visibility challenge. It led to deeper conversations about outreach, public awareness, and how WSIS could better communicate its relevance. The comment also sparked discussions about leveraging existing architecture rather than creating parallel processes.

Why is the one so detached from the other? Because if you’re not into the field, you won’t hear of the WSIS process. And it’s a very important process, because everyone uses ICTs, everyone uses AI right now, every child uses it, but no one knows that there’s a whole European process around it.

Speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

Reason

This comment crystallized the disconnect between the ubiquity of digital technology in daily life and public awareness of the governance processes that shape these technologies. It highlighted a critical gap between policy-making and public engagement.

Impact

This observation reinforced and expanded on Jimson’s earlier point, leading to sustained discussions across multiple tables about capacity building, grassroots engagement, and the need for better communication strategies. It helped frame the conversation around making WSIS more accessible and relevant to broader communities.

One voice that I do not see at all here is indigenous voices. So in the US you have a multitude of Native American tribes that are not hearing. And the reason I’ve been told is they’re not hearing as well as the work is done by the government. And if the government doesn’t get the word out, then they’re not participating.

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez

Reason

This comment brought attention to a specific and often overlooked gap in representation, highlighting how structural barriers prevent marginalized communities from participating in processes that affect them. It moved beyond general calls for inclusion to identify concrete missing voices.

Impact

This intervention shifted the conversation toward more specific discussions about inclusion and representation. It led to broader conversations about who is missing from WSIS processes and how to address structural barriers to participation, influencing discussions about capacity building and outreach strategies.

Can you imagine 40 agencies talking to each other in a meaningful way? You know, I asked that question a few months ago… So there’s more competition and collaboration, like industry in a way. So they’re fighting for survival.

Speaker

Joyce Chen

Reason

This comment exposed the structural challenges within the UN system itself, revealing how institutional competition undermines the collaborative goals of WSIS. It provided insider insight into why coordination mechanisms struggle despite good intentions.

Impact

This observation led to extensive discussions about UN reform, sustainability challenges, and the need for ‘collaboration not competition.’ It helped participants understand systemic barriers to effective implementation and sparked conversations about how to restructure mechanisms for better coordination.

We are the Homo sapiens, and we don’t know what will happen in 20 years, 30 years, 50 years’ time. Maybe we’ll become Homo digital… But however, it is said that as we build capacity, connectivity, we should not lose our sense of creativity, our sense of agility, such that we can even continue to use our brain.

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Reason

This comment introduced a philosophical dimension to the technical discussion, raising fundamental questions about human agency and creativity in an increasingly digital world. It challenged participants to think beyond technical solutions to consider human values and capabilities.

Impact

This intervention elevated the conversation from practical implementation issues to deeper questions about the purpose and values underlying digital development. It influenced discussions about education, human-centered approaches, and the need to preserve human creativity and critical thinking in digital transformation.

The question is, where will it be achieved? Because you cannot just have a mapping. Yes, you have a mapping, but where would the actual implementation take place? So we all agree at the national level, at the sub-national level, local level, communities level.

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Reason

This comment cut through abstract policy discussions to focus on the practical challenge of implementation. It highlighted the gap between high-level frameworks and ground-level action, pushing the conversation toward concrete solutions.

Impact

This intervention became central to discussions about strengthening implementation mechanisms. It led to sustained conversations about local engagement, the role of national and regional IGFs, and the need to move beyond Geneva-based discussions to community-level action.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing critical tensions and challenges that participants hadn’t fully articulated. Jimson Olufuye’s observations about AI for Good’s popularity and the future of human-digital interaction provided bookends that framed the entire conversation around relevance and purpose. The unnamed participant’s question about WSIS visibility and Marcelo Martinez’s point about indigenous voices shifted the focus toward inclusion and accessibility challenges. Joyce Chen’s insight about UN agency competition exposed systemic barriers that explained many of the implementation challenges discussed. Together, these comments moved the conversation from celebratory reflection on WSIS achievements toward honest assessment of structural problems and future challenges. They created a more nuanced understanding of why WSIS struggles with visibility and implementation despite its foundational importance, and helped participants develop more concrete recommendations for addressing these challenges through better coordination, inclusion, and local engagement.

Why is AI for Good summit more popular and well-known than WSIS despite WSIS being the ‘grandfather’ process that has been running for over 20 years?

Speaker

Participant at Joyce’s table

Explanation

This highlights a fundamental visibility and outreach challenge for WSIS, suggesting need for research into communication strategies and public engagement approaches

How can WSIS and AI for Good summit be better connected and integrated rather than operating as separate, detached processes?

Speaker

Participant at Joyce’s table

Explanation

This points to potential structural inefficiencies and missed opportunities for synergy between related UN processes

How can we ensure meaningful participation of indigenous voices in WSIS processes, particularly given their absence from current discussions?

Speaker

Marcelo Martinez and other participants

Explanation

This identifies a significant gap in representation that requires targeted outreach and inclusion strategies

What is the most effective model of development that WSIS should pursue – people-centered, policy-driven, or community-centered?

Speaker

Joyce’s table participants

Explanation

This fundamental question about development philosophy needs clarification to guide future WSIS implementation

How can the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and WSIS architecture be integrated without duplication of efforts?

Speaker

Isabelle Lois and her table

Explanation

This addresses potential overlap and coordination challenges between major digital governance frameworks

How can we establish clear, measurable indicators and success metrics for WSIS implementation mechanisms?

Speaker

Multiple participants across tables

Explanation

The lack of robust measurement systems hampers the ability to assess progress and effectiveness of WSIS initiatives

What specific reforms are needed to address the sustainability challenges facing UN agencies involved in WSIS due to reduced funding?

Speaker

Joyce’s table participants

Explanation

Funding cuts threaten the continuity of WSIS mechanisms and require strategic solutions for long-term sustainability

How can WSIS processes be strengthened at national, sub-national, and local community levels rather than remaining primarily at international level?

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye and participants

Explanation

This addresses the implementation gap between high-level policy discussions and on-ground impact

How can the 39 UN agencies involved in UNGIS coordinate more effectively to avoid duplication and competition?

Speaker

Multiple participants

Explanation

The large number of agencies creates coordination challenges that may reduce overall effectiveness

What role should top-level external consultants play in measuring and evaluating WSIS implementation rather than agencies self-assessing?

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Explanation

This suggests potential bias in current evaluation methods and need for independent assessment mechanisms

Summary

This discussion was a WSIS Action Line C7 session focused on eScience and its evolution over the past 20 years, featuring panelists from UNESCO, GESDA, Delft University of Technology, and IEEE Standards Association. The session aimed to identify key messages and issues for the WSIS 2020 review regarding how eScience has developed and what challenges remain.

UNESCO’s Amal Kasry presented their Global Remote Access Initiative, which addresses the digital divide in scientific research by providing remote access to sophisticated laboratory equipment and analysis software for researchers in the Global South. This program has already benefited 126 researchers and 118 students across 11 African countries, allowing them to conduct high-quality research using expensive equipment like X-ray diffractometers through virtual networks. The initiative emphasizes building regional resilience and self-sufficiency rather than dependence on certain regions.

Manuel Gustavo Isaac from GESDA discussed anticipatory science diplomacy, explaining how their organization identifies emerging scientific breakthroughs and their potential societal impacts. GESDA’s work focuses on three fundamental questions about human identity, societal coexistence, and sustainable planetary relationships, culminating in their “Planetarized Humanity” initiative that addresses how accelerating technological change will transform basic assumptions about human existence.

Shamira Ahmed highlighted persistent asymmetries in global science and digital access, particularly affecting women and marginalized groups in Sub-Saharan Africa. She emphasized the need for people-centered approaches that move beyond mere access to actual resource allocation, technology transfer, and locally-owned innovation ecosystems. Her recommendations included sustainable prosperity networks that anchor scientific innovation in distributed problem-solving, ethical governance, and participatory accountability.

Karen Mulberry from IEEE discussed the role of open, consensus-driven standards in ensuring ethical technology development, emphasizing that standards must address not just technical specifications but also social impacts like bias in AI systems and age-appropriate design principles. The discussion concluded with recognition that eScience must democratize opportunities and ensure scientific advancement serves all of humanity, requiring unprecedented global collaboration and partnership across all stakeholder groups.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Remote Access to Scientific Infrastructure**: UNESCO’s Global Remote Access Initiative aims to democratize scientific research by providing researchers in developing countries with virtual access to sophisticated laboratory equipment and techniques, such as X-ray diffractometers, that are typically unavailable or unaffordable in their regions.

– **Anticipatory Science Diplomacy**: GESDA’s approach to science diplomacy focuses on anticipating scientific and technological breakthroughs before they occur, identifying opportunities for action, and ensuring equitable benefits through multi-stakeholder collaboration, particularly addressing three fundamental questions about human identity, societal coexistence, and planetary sustainability.

– **Digital Equity and Inclusive Governance**: The need to align e-science initiatives with frameworks like the Global Digital Compact to address persistent asymmetries in global science and technology access, particularly focusing on underrepresented groups including women, disabled individuals, and marginalized communities in the Global South.

– **Standards and Ethical Implementation**: The critical role of open, consensus-driven technical standards in ensuring responsible development and deployment of emerging technologies, with emphasis on translating standards into ethical practice and preventing misuse while maintaining inclusivity across different organizational capabilities.

– **Human-Centered Technology Development**: The importance of maintaining human agency and social considerations in technological advancement, including addressing bias in AI systems, age-appropriate design principles, and ensuring that scientific progress serves all of humanity rather than exacerbating existing inequalities.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to review and advance WSIS Action Line C7 on e-science as part of the WSIS+20 review process, focusing on how to make scientific research and technological development more inclusive, equitable, and accessible globally. The session sought to identify key messages and recommendations for advancing international cooperation in science and technology while ensuring that emerging technologies benefit all of humanity.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and forward-looking tone throughout. Speakers demonstrated mutual respect and built upon each other’s points, creating a constructive dialogue. The tone was professional yet passionate about addressing global inequities in science and technology access. There was a shared sense of urgency about the need for inclusive approaches to emerging technologies, but this was balanced with optimism about the potential for positive change through international cooperation and multi-stakeholder partnerships.

Speakers

– **Davide Storti** – UNESCO, Communication and Information Sector (Session moderator and co-organizer of WSIS Forum)

– **Amal Kasry** – UNESCO, Chief of Section for Basic Science, Research, Innovation and Engineering (Joined online)

– **Manuel Gustavo Isaac** – GESDA (Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator), Lead Program for Science Anticipation Philosophy

– **Shamira Ahmed** – Delft University of Technology, Researcher (Joined online)

– **Karen Mulberry** – IEEE Standard Association, Senior Manager in Technology Policy

– **Audience** – Various audience members asking questions (including Anthony Wong, IFIT president, and Maricela Munoz from JESDA)

Additional speakers:

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

# WSIS Action Line C7: E-Science Evolution and Future Directions

## Discussion Summary

### Introduction and Session Overview

This WSIS Action Line C7 session, held on the final day of the WSIS High-Level Event 2025, was moderated by Davide Storti from UNESCO’s Communication and Information Sector. The session examined e-science evolution over the past two decades and identified priorities for the WSIS+20 review process. The panel featured UNESCO’s Amal Kasry (Chief of Section for Basic Science, Research, Innovation and Engineering), Manuel Gustavo Isaac from GESDA (Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator), Shamira Ahmed from Delft University of Technology, and Karen Mulberry from IEEE Standards Association.

Storti opened by noting how WSIS Action Lines have become increasingly interconnected, making it difficult to discuss e-science without referencing broader digital governance and capacity building frameworks.

### UNESCO’s Remote Access Initiative

Amal Kasry presented UNESCO’s Global Remote Access Initiative, which addresses limited access to scientific research infrastructure, particularly in Least Developed Countries. The programme provides remote access to sophisticated laboratory equipment and analysis software for researchers in the Global South.

The initiative has benefited 126 researchers and 118 students across 11 African countries, focusing initially on X-ray diffractometry equipment that would typically be unavailable or unaffordable in their home institutions. Kasry explained that “virtual networks can bridge the gap between limited resources and unlimited potential,” emphasizing the programme’s goal of creating self-sufficient regional networks rather than dependency relationships.

The initiative includes training local focal points to provide hands-on support and expertise, ensuring remote access capabilities are complemented by local knowledge. Kasry stressed the importance of “creating self-sufficient networks within the same regions rather than depending solely on external resources.”

UNESCO issued an open call for contributions to global mapping of scientific infrastructure and invited participation in initiatives under the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development. Kasry concluded that the vision goes “beyond technology to democratise opportunities and ensure scientific advancement serves all humanity.”

### GESDA’s Anticipatory Science Diplomacy

Manuel Gustavo Isaac, representing GESDA and serving on the UN Scientific Advisory Board, introduced anticipatory science diplomacy, which identifies scientific breakthroughs with high potential impact before they fully emerge. This approach focuses on three fundamental questions about human identity in technological transformation, societal coexistence and governance, and sustainable planetary relationships.

Isaac explained that GESDA’s work addresses what he termed “Planetarised Humanity,” examining how emerging technologies will transform basic assumptions about human existence. He noted that “all the anticipated emerging sciences and technologies that we identify in the radar will basically radically transform some of the most basic features of our reality.”

The methodology involves multi-stakeholder discussions to accelerate action opportunities and ensure equitable distribution of benefits from emerging technologies. Isaac acknowledged challenges in making complex scientific content accessible to stakeholders with different worldviews and ensuring that standards remain inclusive across different organizational capabilities.

### Global Digital Cooperation and Inclusivity

Shamira Ahmed addressed persistent asymmetries in global science and digital access, particularly affecting women and marginalized groups in Sub-Saharan Africa. She highlighted how under-investment in science, technology, and innovation ecosystems creates systemic barriers to research and development.

Ahmed emphasized that women face systematic barriers in STEM fields, with additional challenges for disabled individuals and other marginalized communities. She argued that “it’s not only about having a seat above the table, it’s also about money. Creating scientific innovations requires allocation of resources, investments, transfers of technology, building human talent.”

She advocated for people-centered approaches that move beyond access provision to ensure actual resource allocation and locally-owned innovation ecosystems. Ahmed proposed sustainable prosperity networks that anchor scientific innovation in distributed problem-solving and participatory accountability mechanisms, designed to complement existing e-science working groups through South-led partnerships.

Ahmed also emphasized aligning e-science initiatives with frameworks like the Global Digital Compact, ensuring human rights principles guide governance of frontier technologies.

### Standards and Ethical Implementation

Karen Mulberry presented IEEE’s approach to developing open, consensus-driven standards, noting the organization’s 500,000+ members across 190 countries. IEEE’s process addresses both technical specifications and societal impacts of emerging technologies, including bias mitigation in AI systems and age-appropriate design principles.

When questioned about preventing disasters like the UK Horizon scandal, Mulberry acknowledged limitations: “You can never prevent a standard or a product or a service bad actors. But we can do the best that we can to elevate what we think is the most appropriate to a place where it can be enforced.”

She highlighted enforcement mechanisms such as incorporating IEEE standards into legal frameworks like the EU AI Act. Mulberry addressed concerns about standards creating barriers for organizations with different capabilities, emphasizing IEEE’s commitment to inclusive design while maintaining ethical principles.

IEEE has established a social technology group focused on addressing societal impacts of emerging technologies, and Mulberry invited broader participation in these discussions.

### Q&A Discussion and Key Themes

The discussion revealed several common themes across presentations. Audience member Maricela Munoz asked about maintaining “human dimension and human agency in conversations about digital and technological transitions,” which speakers addressed by emphasizing that technology development must prioritize human needs and rights.

Speakers consistently emphasized the importance of collaborative networks and multi-stakeholder partnerships. The WSIS community was recognized as representing potential partnerships for expanding scientific collaboration across traditional boundaries.

Discussion highlighted the challenge of translating technical capabilities into equitable outcomes. Speakers acknowledged that addressing global challenges like climate change requires collective intelligence from the entire global community, with Kasry noting “we cannot afford to leave any talent behind.”

Several unresolved challenges emerged, including effective translation of technical standards into practical implementation, ensuring adequate resource allocation for developing countries’ STI ecosystems, and maintaining human agency in increasingly automated scientific processes.

### Concrete Next Steps

The session generated specific action items:

– UNESCO’s call for contributions to global mapping of scientific infrastructure, with QR codes provided for participation

– Open call for initiatives under the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development

– IEEE invitation for stakeholders to join their social technology group

– Proposals for developing Sustainable Prosperity Networks as complementary mechanisms to existing e-science working groups

– UNESCO’s commitment to expanding remote access initiative to additional techniques and regions

### Conclusion

The session demonstrated both progress and persistent challenges in e-science development since the original WSIS declarations. While technological capabilities have advanced, fundamental issues of equity, access, and inclusive participation remain central concerns.

Kasry’s closing remarks emphasized that “the future of science is not just about the technology we develop, but about the bridges we build between communities, between nations, and between dreams and reality.” The discussion highlighted the evolution of e-science from primarily technical concerns to encompass broader questions of social justice and global equity.

The convergence of digital technologies and science creates opportunities to align WSIS Action Lines with frameworks like the Global Digital Compact and UN Sustainable Development Goals. The emphasis on anticipatory governance, human-centered approaches, and multi-stakeholder collaboration provides a foundation for ensuring scientific advancement serves all humanity rather than exacerbating existing inequalities.

Davide Storti: Good morning, good day, everyone. Good morning and welcome to the last day of the WSIS High-Level Event 2025. We are here for a session which is an Action Line session for Action Line C7 for eScience. This is Davide Storti from UNESCO, Communication and Information Sector. We are co-organizers of the WSIS Forum with ITU, UNDP and UNCTAD. This Action Line session is an opportunity for discussing issues and sending key messages for the WSIS 2020 review concerning this Action Line and how this has evolved and what are the issues and key messages that we like to send to the reviewers, to the Member States for advancing the work on what was called 20 years ago eScience, and maybe there are different terms that we can use today. I’m pleased to have this great panel with my colleague Amal Kasry, Chief of Section for Basic Science, Research, Innovation and Engineering at UNESCO, joining us online. Mr. Manuel Gustavo Isaac, Lead Program for Science Anticipation Philosophy in GESDA, the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator. Online we have also Mrs. Shamira Ahmed, Researcher from the Delft University of Technology. And then to my left, this is Karen Mulberry from the IEEE Standard Association. So, without further ado, I’d like to call my colleague Amal Kasry to introduce us. What is UNESCO’s idea and points on this Action Line?

Amal Kasry: Good morning, everyone. Can you hear me well? Yes. Good morning. Good to see you. Some of you, of course, I know very well and really glad to be in this. Thank you so much for the kind invitation. As my colleague David mentioned, I will introduce one of the things we are doing at UNESCO that addresses this important topic is access and equity. Give me one second to share my screen. OK, can you confirm that you can see my screen? Yes, we can. Thank you. Perfect. OK, thank you so much. So, I know that I have very little time, so I try to be very brief and I will introduce one of our major initiatives, which is remote access to scientific knowledge, which is very important in building capacity in the fields of basic sciences, engineering and STEM. So, we are trying to help and support the scientists mainly in the Global South to achieve that. So, let me move. So, first, let me start by the major challenges that actually are there and that need this kind of access. So, limited resources, of course, in the educational and institutions, especially in LDCs, often operate with limited budget, limited tools, limited laboratories, equipment and so on. Also, fragmented efforts quite often, especially in the STEM related fields, often institutions are isolated. They don’t collaborate enough with each other. And this leads to isolation of the scientists and the engineers as well. Also, a lack of collaborative network. So, we try to design an initiative that can actually try to close all these gaps and resolve all these challenges. Also, opportunities for virtual. So, virtual networks present a kind of a very powerful opportunity to bridge this gap in the field of STEM, which is a major concern for us. So, let me now move to one of the solutions we are offering, remote access to scientific infrastructure. The Global Remote Access Initiative basically seeks to connect researchers, early career scientists, researchers, the engineers, the students as well, in different parts of the world, in the developing countries, in areas that have laboratory techniques. And this initiative fosters participation in cutting edge research to empower scientists in the different regions. The virtual lab instruments provide remote access to experimental techniques. So, basically, sophisticated techniques, especially those that are used in characterization of materials, or like microscopy, like x-ray diffractometers, which are very important for developing new applications. These can be remotely accessed via virtual software. And with that, in the cloud, the enabled experiments can be also used. So, they also allow researchers to perform complex analysis. So, whether they do the experiments or not, they also need the analysis, which sometimes need the powerful softwares, which can be remotely accessed via enabling the cloud. As in the online or the remote access also allows for mentorship and guidance, not only to use the experiment, but also to offer training and the building capacity and sharing knowledge. So, I will talk about one specific example, which we started as a demo, and now we are expanding it to other techniques and other regions. This single crystal x-ray diffractometer, for example, is used in very different fields in basic sciences, or in engineering, in biology, in physics, in chemistry, basically in material science in general. And it’s really sophisticated technique, very expensive, it needs a lot of maintenance. And in Africa, for example, there are only very few, which definitely not enough to allow African scientists in Africa to perform high quality research. So, we started, the model is quite simple. We first, of course, work with different entities, research institutes, centers, also with the governments, of course, and we select one or two scientists from each country who travel to be trained physically on the system while their colleagues work on how to remotely use the system. And the reason for having physical training, of course, is for these colleagues to act as focal points, to track errors, and so on. So, the only thing following this one month training is that the scientists have to send the samples. Of course, for that, we need many partners here or in different regions who have these techniques to allow them to send, to mount the samples for them, and then they do everything. And this really makes a huge difference in the quality of research when the scientists do everything by their own hand, and they own the data, they own the analysis, other applications. And we started to see, we started this more than two and a half years ago. We ran a survey among those who received the training. So far, 11 countries in Africa benefited from this initiative. You see these numbers here, 126 researchers and 118 students, because the researchers use it also for teaching as well. So, it’s not only for research, but also for teaching, which is, which makes it more accessible for a larger number of people. And we are expanding, as I said, we are expanding this now to different techniques and different countries, sorry, different regions. In fact, in Africa, within the same continent, connecting those who have techniques with those who don’t. And for that, in order to advance this, we issued also a big survey I will show you in a minute. So, this model of virtual network, the initial aim to connect educational institutions across the different regions, also fostering collaboration and resource sharing. And by creating this collective platform, educational initiatives, we can leverage the diverse expertise. And then in the end, we would like to have a big network of shared infrastructure that can that can easily be matched. So we try to match, we issue several calls, and we try to match the needs of the scientists with the available techniques, either computer computing techniques or experimental techniques. And we try to build regional resiliency. So not only that, to be not to be dependent only on certain regions, but actually to be self-sufficient within the same region. And in order to achieve this, this is a global mapping of scientific infrastructure that we started working on. Please, if you can take this QR code and try to contribute to this mapping, if you have a new network, if you can share it, because it’s really important for us to have results of this mapping and to try to enhance the opportunities for many big numbers of access. And also, as I said, to enhance the resilience within the same regions or the same country. So really, the final aim for us is to democratize education access by reducing geographical barriers. This inclusive approach promotes equity, allowing students from diverse backgrounds to benefit from quality education. So of course, for that, we need many partnerships, we need many laboratories and scientific institutions to be willing to share, to share the institutions. Following a call we sent to all member states, we received actually quite a very positive response from different entities and different member states, and we are working now to expand this network. Hopefully, we can share more positive results soon. Just a quick measure of programs we work on. This initiative is really serving the basic sciences program, the engineering and innovation program, and the STEM education program. And these three QR codes can take you directly to what we are doing, to all the codes we are issuing in order to achieve our aim of equity and allowing all researchers around the world to have a good chance of doing high quality research. And all this is done under the umbrella of the major initiative of the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development, which was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 2023, entrusting UNESCO to be the lead agency. The vision and the mission are very simple and very clear. The sciences and science culture required for a sustainable world are developed and accessible to all, and our mission is to engage all societal actors to further advance science and equally benefit from it. Let us say the ultimate goal is to build the culture of science. And of course, e-science is one of the most important things that can contribute now to building this culture of science. And there is a call, actually, sorry, this is a bit old from last month, and now the call is open already. Using this QR code, you can apply for or propose an initiative to be implemented under the umbrella of the decade. And following the endorsement of these initiatives that will be evaluated by executive committee and that has been presented to our advisory committee, following endorsement, the endorsed initiatives will be featured on the website of UNESCO or of the decade. And also, the logo of the decade can be used. And also, it will allow creating a big network, because all the endorsement initiatives, the authors or the owners or the applicants will have a chance to collaborate with each other and form a bigger network. So, we hope that we can see more applications related to the field of e-science soon. And thank you so much for listening. Thank you, David.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much, Amal, for this comprehensive presentation. Words that are resounding very much with the WSIS forum, WSIS spirit and principles of collaboration, access, guidance, the networking. So, these are all keywords that for which the WSIS community, actually, it’s the one, not only the audience, but it’s also really a network of potential partnerships to expand this work that you just described. May turn now to Manuel Gustavo Isaac from GESDA to give us a bit of perspective on what is called the science diplomacy. Maybe you could also explain it a bit quickly what science diplomacy is and also how do you ensure that inclusivity, diversity and representativeness in science and in your work, particularly, which is science anticipation?

Manuel Gustavo Isaac: Exactly. Well, thanks so much for the opportunity. That’s a great honor to be on that panel. So, what I’ll do is I’ll present you with the work we do in science diplomacy, but more specifically, what we call anticipatory science diplomacy. So, GESDA stands for Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator, as has been said before. And it’s an independent foundation that’s been initiated by the Swiss federal government in 2019 and the city and the canton of Geneva. And with a mission to anticipate possible scientific and technological breakthrough that will have high potential impact for people, society and the planet, and to identify on that basis opportunities for action. The next step in our pipeline of activities is to accelerate these action opportunities through multi-stakeholder discussion to develop solution ideas in order to ensure that everybody benefits from future scientific and technological advances. Back to my slides. That’s fine, no worries. And the last bit on that basis is to translate the solution ideas into concrete projects and global initiative in collaboration with multilateral institutions, especially based in the international Geneva. So, one thing that’s kind of distinctive of the work we do is that we are a science-first organization. We start with scientists, with researchers, and we do not, but most importantly as well and together with opportunities. And that is what you can see now, that the digital representation is what we call the science breakthrough radar, which is the cornerstone of everything we do. It gathers all the insight that we get in terms of science and innovation that range from advanced AI to the future of consciousness, also in science, including more social sciences and humanities-like topics, such as economics. It covers all together about 40 emerging topics that are able to help us identify more than 300 breakthroughs, both mid- and long-term. That’s kind of conducted in close collaboration with a broad range of distinguished experts and scientists from around the world. And in that capacity, we are serving in various advisory boards, including the one of the United Nations Science Scientific Advisory Board. So, that’s one distinctive aspect of what we do. We start with science, we start with researchers in these communities, and we focus not only on risk, but on opportunities as well. Another aspect that’s also distinctive and that kind of really contributes to framing our whole science anticipation endeavor is that all the work we do is somehow guided by three fundamental questions. The first is about who we are as humans. What does it mean to be a youth? AI-powered chatbots, gene editing, augmented reality, and so on. The second is more at the meso level, and it concerns how we can live together as societies. And the last one is at the global level of the relationship we might wish to foster in a sustainable way with the planet. So, these three questions help us frame and build narrative for the science anticipation work we do, and that’s released on a yearly basis in the radar that I alluded to before. And that’s based, again, on expert research. We kind of gather from around the world, our kind of specialists themselves on these scientific topics. And these three big questions are kind of materializing currently in a new initiative of ours that we call Planetarized Humanity. We call that term as a diagnostic concept to try to tap into this idea of us that our human condition is basically in need to be rethought, deeply rethought. Our human relational condition, relation to ourselves and to the planet at the global scales. And this is actually going to be deeply transformed through accelerated social and technological co-evolution. So the basic rational for that is that all the anticipated emerging sciences and technologies that we identify in the radar will basically radically transform some of the most basic features of our reality. And this transformation will actually challenge some of the most fundamental assumption we have about what it means to be human. For instance, in the context of the human right, what it may mean, how we can live together as societies and in a sustainable relationship to the planet. And we think that it is absolutely critical to anticipate as well these so-called conceptual disruption in order to align the development of emerging sciences and technologies with our human values and societal needs across disciplines and sector. So we think there’s an opportunity here to equip various decision makers and leaders with conceptual tools and practical methodologies so that they understand this accelerating social and technological co-evolution and then on that basis able to act upon it. And for the diplomatic community, what it more maybe specifically means is that by proactively anticipating these conceptual disruption, they’ll be able to address global technoscientific challenges before they become crisis, positioning themselves to shape rather than just respond to this accelerating social technological co-evolution. Thank you for the opportunity.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much, Gustavo. I think you said the shape, not just respond. I think it’s very actual as a theme as we see that we are all facing the major disruptions of emerging technologies every day. I think, so in a few words, maybe what are the key challenges in this?

Manuel Gustavo Isaac: If you have to name like. Well, the key challenges for science anticipation at large are kind of really, well, quite obvious. It actually, the content we are able to kind of collect from these insights from the scientists and the researcher is pretty complex. It’s very rich, it’s very dense, and it’s a translation issue. And it’s not only about doing some sort of popular science, but there’s much more to that. It’s not only about kind of having abiding by one way translation from science and research to the talk with, it’s also about making that content relevant to their needs in a way that is respectful of their own perspective, and that basically speaks to what they are concerned with. And that consideration and that sensitivity towards the other’s needs and being able to respond in a way that’s actually useful for them is something that really needs to be kind of carefully crafted, and especially when it engage stakeholders that have different worldviews and different kind of conception about some very basic ideas, such as the very notion of intelligence in the context of artificial intelligence, for instance. It’s very hard to align them and to make them speak the same language.

Davide Storti: Thank you, thank you very much. I’d like now to call Shamira Hamed, researcher from Delfin University, joining us online. And I’d like to continue this discussion on the science diplomacy, asking how can science diplomacy and global digital cooperation mechanism evolve to ensure digital public goods, such as open data standards, the scientific infrastructure, as we heard also from Amal, et cetera. So, Shamira.

Shamira Ahmed: Thank you, David, for the opportunity to contribute to this dialogue. And a lot of my inputs and insights will actually be reflecting what Amal and Manuel mentioned. So, as we reflect on 20 years of WSIS and Look Ahead, given the convergence between digital technologies and science and this event on e-science, it’s critical that we align our ambitions, especially within the UN ecosystem, for inclusive e-science with other initiatives, such as the Global Digital Compact. And some of the values and principles in the Global Digital Compact align with a lot of the discussion points mentioned earlier by my previous speakers on universal connectivity, human rights, equitable access to digital public goods and inclusive governance. So, in terms of WSIS Action Line on e-science, there is a unique role to play, given the convergence, by embedding science diplomacy and digital cooperation in the service of anticipatory, inclusive and locally relevant STI innovation ecosystem by digital technologies, according to the context of different ecosystems. And I think Amal mentioned this, that the way science, technology and innovation ecosystems are going to be created in lower resourced countries is going to be different based on their context and actual realities. So, Amal mentioned that there are persistent asymmetries in the global science digital nexus. And these are some of the issues that we also highlighted. And as you mentioned, I am a researcher. So, we developed a policy brief as part of the T7 with a wide group of researchers and interested parties, I’ll put it in the chat. And in that proposal, we highlighted people-centered science and digital transformation of the T7 task force for science and digitalization for a better future. So, the three main issues we highlighted were that a lot that Amal mentions was under-investment in STI ecosystem, which ultimately undermine research and development and are compounded by digital exclusion and job precarity from digital automation. And also according to the sex ratio that’s developed by the World Bank, although women are the majority, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, they still face systematic barriers to representation and participating in both the science technology and information communications and technology ecosystems and pipelines. And basically the STEM subjects that Amal highlighted. And this is even more dire for other marginalized groups like disabled people and people with disabilities and disabled people and people who are part of the LGBT plus Q society. And another issue was that there’s extractive behavior and an equal power dynamics in the way projects are funded. Corporations engage in these ecosystems in lower resourced countries and they often create monopolies, concentrate power and often leave out communities without access to things like their own data that is extracted for e-science and other digital innovations. And they also create governance that doesn’t facilitate resilient ecosystems, which essentially undermines the core GDC principle of equity and accountability. And some of the values and principles that Manuel and Amal also highlighted in what is needed to have a more resilient and equitable interaction for e-science. And so in terms of a way forward, I will focus my recommendations on the publication we wrote on sustainable, that centers human rights for anticipatory governance of frontier tech. And so in our proposed brief in the chat, a sustainable prosperity network can serve as a complimentary mechanism to the e-science working group for WSIS and also for the global digital compact because it anchors scientific innovation and digital cooperation in four key areas, distributed problem solving, ethical governance, open digital public infrastructure and participatory accountability. And I won’t go into further detail on these four points. The document is in the chat, but basically the SPN reinforces the digital compact vision of inclusive human centered governance and ethical digital systems that support flourishing of people and the planet. And it also highlights addressing structural gaps that forms that the WSIS plus 20 and this e-science action line can help bridge. Another document that we also developed that is complimentary to our discussion on anticipation and human rights is the UNESCO document on human rights centered global governance. These two documents that are in the chat highlight both thinking of science. and digitalization for people and the planet, and also focusing on human rights as the focal point, human rights principles as a focal point to anticipate the governance of frontier technologies, such as quantum technologies and AI, for example. So lastly, in terms of measurable outcomes and key priorities, a lot of them are highlighted in the two documents, so I won’t really go into detail just to save time. But we proposed, based on the research, and the research was developed in collaboration with many experts, so I will continue saying we because it was not an individual. Based on the evidence we developed in the development of these two knowledge products, we recommended people-centered impact metrics, global anticipatory governance and foresight, and when I say global, I’m highlighting mechanisms that link global safety and open science agendas with regional needs, and I think Manuel mentioned this as well as very important in discussing the context of how people understand science, technology, and innovation, for example. So another point I’d like to highlight on global anticipatory governance and foresight is that also aligning global initiatives like the International Decade of Science for Sustainable Development, the GDC, and this action line, but grounding them in more South-led partnerships and moving away from North-South dependency, but also having more ownership and more interaction within South-to-South learning ecosystems. Of course, the technology is not as advanced in the Global South countries, but I think potentially creating North-South-to-South corporations where different regions can learn from each other and also the Global North can learn from different scientists and ecosystems. We also highlighted an interoperability framework that aligns with the GDC. The WSIS can actually convene common ethical and data standards that allow marginalized institutions and underrepresented regions to plug global science for prosperity for people on the planet. And in closing, I’d like to highlight that to achieve inclusive e-science futures, we can’t not only ground science diplomacy, but also actual allocation of resources that supports local science, technology, and innovation ecosystems. So it’s not only about having a seat above the table, it’s also about money. Creating scientific innovations requires allocation of resources, investments, transfers of technology, building human talent, and ensure embedded in justice, equity, and flourishing of local communities, not just mere access. So the WSIS plus 20 process, in combination with the GDC and other instruments and principles that we are within the UN system can offer a generational opportunity to embed shared digital and scientific infrastructure as a global digital public good, particularly for socially disruptive technologies such as AI and even for the potential applications of quantum technologies. And if we do this right, we won’t need to continue historic forms of extraction and fairness, but we can just continue to connect, we can continue to connect, and we’ll connect science to the people and also build equitable, sustainable futures that everyone deserves, regardless of which region you happen to live in. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much. I would like now to turn to Karen Mulberry that from IEEE. I think much of what we hear has to be based on some grounds. And I think maybe you may say something about how standards for open and responsible science may actually ground this concept that we heard.

Karen Mulberry: Yes, thank you very much, especially for this opportunity to reflect on how IEEE opportunities and challenges presented by emerging technology. I’m Karen Mulberry. I’m a senior manager in the Standards Association. I work on technology policy, the crossover between one world and another. Now, before we kind of go into a little bit more about the work of IEEE and what we’re focusing on, I thought maybe I’d tell you a little bit about who we are. We’re the largest technical professional organization with over 500,000 members in 190 countries. We’re a public charity, and we operate as a technical community around the world with our fundamental mission being advancing technology for humanity. Our global technical organization, the world is becoming even more interconnected. And so standards play a very pivotal role in that fundamental language between technology and how it’s used and the applications. So when we look at how IEEE contributes, especially to the WSIS Action Lines, we promote open, ethical, and cooperative use of emerging technologies. And our approach supports inclusive access to knowledge, which is C3, accelerates scientific collaboration, which is what we’re talking about today in C7, embeds ethical principles in ICT development, which is C10, and facilitates international cooperation in C11. So as you can tell, we try to follow the WSIS Action Lines and contribute our scientific knowledge and research to the benefit of humanity. Now, when we look at the standards development process, our standards are open, consensus-driven, and they’re built on a foundation of the multi-stakeholder model. It’s a process of bottoms up, such that anyone who is interested, whether you’re a scientist, an engineer, a researcher, an academic, or just have an interest in a topic is welcome to come and talk about what it is and what should be the parameters and frameworks around the standard related to that topic. So we welcome all to come to the table who are interested in that topic to discuss it. Now, when we look at emerging technologies, now, reflect back in history, we’re the home of 802 and the Wi-Fi standards. It was initially developed to do one particular, to solve one particular problem, which was tracking things. It was more for supply chain. However, if we look at how that technology has emerged and changed because of the needs of everyone, it has evolved to, we have a smartphone that actually is smarter than my first computer. So, you know, technology continues to evolve. So you can’t just say emerging technology is just one thing like artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence starts here and it has gone into many different areas. For example, with our work in artificial intelligence, we have moved now into technical societal aspects because it’s not just pure technology or pure engineering that you need to consider. Now, with artificial intelligence being applied in many ways, it is bias. How do you address bias in the process? How do you look at other social impacts to mental health and the use of AI? So emerging technologies is just the start of a path that opens up a very broad world of opportunities where if we collaborate together, we can actually look at how we can use technology to solve some of these problems. Another example of the work that we have ongoing with AI in particular, it is, and actually we’ve looked at this a little broader. It’s age appropriate design principles should be built in when you’re looking at a variety of technology applications because what might be appropriate for one age group may not be appropriate for another age group. And you have the younger population that is most vulnerable, but you also have an aging population that is very vulnerable. So guidance needs to be established on how you expose them and what’s appropriate for them to be exposed to. So we have a body of work along in those lines. I mean, so we’re trying to make sure that we really address emerging technologies and the best application. and really to further that for all of humanity. So thank you very much.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much, Karen. I think that’s, I mean, here, all this discussion, I think this comforts what I’ve been hearing all week, which is basically that it’s hard with the difference between 20 years ago and now, also all these different dimensions that are actually increasingly cross-cutting. We can’t talk about one actual line without talking about another actual line, et cetera. I’d like to thank the speakers. Ask if there’s any questions from the floor or comments, of course, even online, of course.

Shamira Ahmed: There is a question online. Sorry, I’ll just take the opportunity to be online moderator.

Davide Storti: Please, please.

Shamira Ahmed: The question was directed to me, and it was about the T7. So just to give a bit of the background, the T7 proposal was part of Japan’s G7 presidency, and we developed a policy brief as part of the task force for science and digitalization. So there are only recommendations to the T7. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there are these initiatives, but I think we can discuss these further with Lauren Reyes. I think I’ll send you a chat privately to discuss it further. It was definitely being initiated or operationalized by the T7 group. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you, Davide. Anthony Wong, IFIT president. A question for the panel and for our IEEE panel member. We have many standards already about technology. What I’m curious about is how do we translate all the standards to ensure that following those standards and ethically applying to ensure we don’t have similar disasters to what we’ve just seen in the latest report from the UK Ministry of Justice on the UK horizon scandal? Because with complexity of AI coming along, that’s going to exacerbate the areas and leading to things that we can’t even imagine at this stage. So of the panel’s insight, how do we translate standards to practice? Because there’s a similar question that I’m going to pose to the next session is there’s very room to the IFIT professional standards panel. How are we going to overcome these big challenges coming ahead? Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you.

Karen Mulberry: Yes, I think you posed, I think, a very relevant question. Because at least for IEEE, we have a set of ethical principles that we follow this process to review and adopt standards. However, when the standard exists out there, it depends on the user as to how it’s applied. I know in more and more cases, especially when you look at the EU AI Act, they’re actually qualifying and quantifying standards and specific aspects of a standard in a law so that there is enforcement capabilities, so that you keep things along the ethical path. You can never prevent a standard or a product or a service bad actors. But we can do the best that we can to elevate what we think is the most appropriate to a place where it can be enforced.

Manuel Gustavo Isaac: Can I just add something briefly here? I think a key challenge as well is to design the challenge in a way that’s kind of inclusive and irrespective of the different kind of participants across the value chain. And then the other issue is for the standard not to increase the divide between the different kind of actors in the industries. Specifically, you might have very different abilities to actually implement them depending on the size of your organization. I believe you know that, of course.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much. I think I will now turn to you.

Audience: Thank you very much, Maricela Munoz from JESDA. I think this fascinating discussion. And I believe that sometimes when we talk about the transition between the analog and the digital and technological worlds, we focus, as we need to, on standards, investments, education, infrastructure. But somehow that’s loaded in the conversation. And I know that I’m always touching upon the planetarized humanity. So I was wondering if the panelists would have further insights on how we can keep and uplift that human dimension, that human agency in our conversations, in the development of anticipatory-level governance also, as some of them were highlighting. Thank you.

Davide Storti: Thank you. Is there any panelist?

Karen Mulberry: Thank you. I know within IEEE, we have a number of years ago formed the social technology group. Philosophers, academics, researchers, looking at, especially when they were looking at AI and the data sets, how do you ensure that bias is not part of the initial data set? Because then it becomes replicated. How do you address the differences between indigenous people and languages as AI actually looks at data sets? So they have initial sets of standards that have been adopted. And they’re working on a significant body of others as people bring issues to them that technology has created this impact or this concern. And if you have something along those lines, you’re welcome to join that group and contribute to the discussion. Because it’s a bottoms-up process. So people have to identify the issue and bring it in in order to have it go through the rigor to be adopted as a standard.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much. I think we have to close, unfortunately. But I think Amal online would like me to conclude.

Amal Kasry: Thank you very much, David. And thank you for all the panelists for this very interesting discussion. And as we conclude, I think it’s clear that this important discussion, e-science for inclusive future, emphasized that the vision we share goes beyond technology. It is about democratizing opportunities and ensuring that scientific advancement serves all humanities. What we discussed today is not just about developing programs, or it’s actually about the brilliant minds in understanding different issues in underserved regions to the global scientific community. And they also present our commitment to ensuring that young researchers, especially in rural areas, for example, have the same opportunity to learn and the same access to cutting-edge technologies at their country parts. So there is actually urgency to act. And the challenges we face, like climate change, biodiversity loss, and sustainable development, all these challenges require a collective intelligence of our entire global community. And we cannot afford, of course, to leave any talent behind. So we need to enable young women scientists also in the global south to have this opportunity. Of course, none of us can do this alone. It is clear that we need the partnerships, we need expertise, and we need commitment from all different stakeholders, the government representatives, private sector organizations, civil societies. And I think this panel was really a good example of having different representatives from different stakeholders. So finally, I think to get together, we can really build an e-science ecosystem where innovation knows no borders, and where talent is nurtured regardless of geography, or where scientific advancements truly serve sustainable development for all. Thank you very much. I really enjoyed the discussion and the rest of the meeting. Thank you so much.

Davide Storti: Thank you very much, Amal. Thank you to all the panelists for this session. Thank you.

Agreement points

Need for equitable access to scientific infrastructure and resources

Speakers

– Amal Kasry
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Limited resources in educational institutions, especially in LDCs, create barriers to scientific advancement

Persistent asymmetries exist in the global science digital nexus, with under-investment in STI ecosystems undermining research and development

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge significant resource disparities that create barriers to scientific advancement, particularly affecting institutions in developing countries and LDCs

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Importance of human-centered approaches in technology development

Speakers

– Amal Kasry
– Shamira Ahmed
– Karen Mulberry
– Audience

Arguments

The vision for e-science goes beyond technology to democratize opportunities and ensure scientific advancement serves all humanity

People-centered impact metrics and human rights principles should be focal points for anticipating governance of frontier technologies

Standards must address societal aspects of emerging technologies, including bias mitigation and age-appropriate design principles

Human dimension and agency must be maintained in technological transitions and anticipatory governance development

Summary

All speakers emphasize that technology development must prioritize human needs, rights, and agency rather than focusing solely on technical aspects

Topics

Human rights | Human rights principles | Development

Need for collaborative networks and multi-stakeholder partnerships

Speakers

– Amal Kasry
– Shamira Ahmed
– Karen Mulberry
– Davide Storti

Arguments

Virtual networks present powerful opportunities to foster participation in cutting-edge research and empower scientists in different regions

A sustainable prosperity network can serve as a complementary mechanism anchored in distributed problem solving, ethical governance, and participatory accountability

IEEE promotes open, consensus-driven standards development through a multi-stakeholder, bottom-up process that welcomes diverse participation

The WSIS community represents a network of potential partnerships for expanding collaborative scientific work

Summary

All speakers recognize the critical importance of building collaborative networks and partnerships that bring together diverse stakeholders to address scientific and technological challenges

Topics

Development | Capacity development | Infrastructure

Necessity of anticipatory governance for emerging technologies

Speakers

– Manuel Gustavo Isaac
– Shamira Ahmed
– Davide Storti

Arguments

Anticipatory science diplomacy focuses on identifying scientific breakthroughs with high potential impact and accelerating action opportunities through multi-stakeholder discussions

Global anticipatory governance should align global initiatives with regional needs through South-led partnerships and South-to-South learning ecosystems

The challenge is to shape rather than just respond to major technological disruptions

Summary

Speakers agree on the need for proactive, anticipatory approaches to governance that can shape technological development rather than merely react to changes

Topics

Development | Human rights principles | Interdisciplinary approaches

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for moving away from dependency models toward regional self-sufficiency and South-led partnerships in scientific and technological development

Speakers

– Amal Kasry
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Building regional resilience requires creating self-sufficient networks within the same regions rather than depending solely on external resources

Global anticipatory governance should align global initiatives with regional needs through South-led partnerships and South-to-South learning ecosystems

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Both speakers recognize the need to address systematic barriers and vulnerabilities affecting marginalized groups in technology and science fields

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Karen Mulberry

Arguments

Women face systematic barriers to representation in STEM fields, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, with even greater challenges for marginalized groups

Standards must address societal aspects of emerging technologies, including bias mitigation and age-appropriate design principles

Topics

Human rights | Gender rights online | Rights of persons with disabilities

Both speakers emphasize that meaningful change requires concrete resource allocation and collective action, not just policy statements or access provision

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Amal Kasry

Arguments

Achieving inclusive e-science futures requires actual allocation of resources, investments, technology transfers, and building human talent

Collective intelligence from the entire global community is needed to address challenges like climate change and sustainable development

Topics

Development | Sustainable development | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

Standards translation into ethical practice

Speakers

– Karen Mulberry
– Audience

Arguments

Translation of standards into practice requires enforcement mechanisms, such as incorporating standards into legal frameworks like the EU AI Act

Standards must be translated into practice to prevent disasters like the UK Horizon scandal, especially with AI complexity

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged between the IEEE standards representative and audience member on the critical gap between having standards and ensuring their ethical implementation, acknowledging that technical standards alone are insufficient without proper enforcement mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Digital standards

Interconnected nature of technological challenges

Speakers

– Davide Storti
– Manuel Gustavo Isaac
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

WSIS Action Lines are increasingly cross-cutting and interconnected, making it difficult to discuss one without referencing others

The concept of ‘Planetarized Humanity’ addresses how emerging technologies will transform fundamental assumptions about human existence and relationships

A sustainable prosperity network can serve as a complementary mechanism anchored in distributed problem solving, ethical governance, and participatory accountability

Explanation

Unexpected consensus on the fundamental interconnectedness of technological, social, and governance challenges, with speakers from different backgrounds recognizing that siloed approaches are no longer viable

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Human rights principles | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around human-centered technology development, the need for equitable access to scientific resources, collaborative multi-stakeholder approaches, and anticipatory governance frameworks. Speakers consistently emphasized moving beyond technical solutions to address systemic inequalities and ensure inclusive participation.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for e-science policy development. The agreement suggests a mature understanding that technological advancement must be coupled with social justice, equitable resource distribution, and proactive governance. This consensus provides a strong foundation for developing comprehensive e-science policies that address both technical and social dimensions of scientific collaboration.

Different viewpoints

Approach to addressing technological complexity and standards implementation

Speakers

– Karen Mulberry
– Manuel Gustavo Isaac

Arguments

Translation of standards into practice requires enforcement mechanisms, such as incorporating standards into legal frameworks like the EU AI Act

A key challenge as well is to design the challenge in a way that’s kind of inclusive and irrespective of the different kind of participants across the value chain

Summary

Karen focuses on legal enforcement mechanisms and preventing bad actors through regulatory frameworks, while Manuel emphasizes inclusive design that considers different organizational capabilities and worldviews across the value chain

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Development

Unexpected differences

No significant unexpected disagreements identified

Speakers

Arguments

Explanation

The speakers generally aligned on core principles of inclusivity, equity, and human-centered approaches to e-science, with differences mainly in emphasis and methodology rather than fundamental disagreements

Topics

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on core principles with differences mainly in approach and emphasis. Speakers agreed on the need for inclusive, equitable e-science but differed on whether to prioritize technical infrastructure sharing, governance frameworks, legal enforcement, or conceptual understanding of human-technology relationships.

Disagreement level

Low level of fundamental disagreement with high level of methodological diversity. This suggests a mature field where stakeholders share common goals but bring different expertise and perspectives on implementation strategies, which could be complementary rather than conflicting.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for moving away from dependency models toward regional self-sufficiency and South-led partnerships in scientific and technological development

Speakers

– Amal Kasry
– Shamira Ahmed

Arguments

Building regional resilience requires creating self-sufficient networks within the same regions rather than depending solely on external resources

Global anticipatory governance should align global initiatives with regional needs through South-led partnerships and South-to-South learning ecosystems

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Both speakers recognize the need to address systematic barriers and vulnerabilities affecting marginalized groups in technology and science fields

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Karen Mulberry

Arguments

Women face systematic barriers to representation in STEM fields, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, with even greater challenges for marginalized groups

Standards must address societal aspects of emerging technologies, including bias mitigation and age-appropriate design principles

Topics

Human rights | Gender rights online | Rights of persons with disabilities

Both speakers emphasize that meaningful change requires concrete resource allocation and collective action, not just policy statements or access provision

Speakers

– Shamira Ahmed
– Amal Kasry

Arguments

Achieving inclusive e-science futures requires actual allocation of resources, investments, technology transfers, and building human talent

Collective intelligence from the entire global community is needed to address challenges like climate change and sustainable development

Topics

Development | Sustainable development | Capacity development

Key takeaways

E-science must prioritize democratizing access to scientific infrastructure and opportunities, particularly for researchers in the Global South and underserved regions

Remote access to sophisticated scientific equipment and virtual laboratory networks can effectively bridge resource gaps between developed and developing countries

Anticipatory science diplomacy is essential for proactively shaping rather than merely responding to emerging technological disruptions

Standards development must incorporate ethical principles and societal considerations, moving beyond purely technical specifications to address bias, age-appropriate design, and human rights

Successful e-science implementation requires multi-stakeholder collaboration involving governments, private sector, civil society, and international organizations

Human agency and rights must remain central to technological development, with emphasis on people-centered impact metrics and inclusive governance

Regional resilience and South-to-South learning networks are crucial for reducing dependency on North-South partnerships while maintaining global collaboration

The convergence of digital technologies and science creates opportunities to align initiatives like WSIS Action Lines with the Global Digital Compact and UN Sustainable Development Goals

Resolutions and action items

UNESCO’s call for contributions to global mapping of scientific infrastructure through QR codes provided during the session

Open call for initiatives to be implemented under the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development umbrella

Invitation for stakeholders to join IEEE’s social technology group to contribute to standards addressing societal impacts of emerging technologies

Recommendation to develop a Sustainable Prosperity Network as a complementary mechanism to existing e-science working groups

Proposal to create interoperability frameworks that align with the Global Digital Compact to allow marginalized institutions to participate in global science

Commitment to expand UNESCO’s remote access initiative to additional techniques and regions beyond the current 11 African countries

Unresolved issues

How to effectively translate technical standards into practical implementation while preventing misuse by bad actors, as highlighted by the UK Horizon scandal example

Specific mechanisms for ensuring adequate resource allocation and funding for local science, technology, and innovation ecosystems in developing countries

Detailed frameworks for maintaining human agency and preventing dehumanization in increasingly automated and AI-driven scientific processes

Concrete measures to address extractive behaviors and unequal power dynamics in international scientific collaborations and funding arrangements

Scalability challenges for expanding successful pilot programs like UNESCO’s remote access initiative to global levels

Integration mechanisms between various international initiatives (WSIS, GDC, International Decade of Sciences) to avoid duplication and ensure coherent implementation

Suggested compromises

Hybrid model combining physical training for local focal points with remote access capabilities to balance hands-on expertise with broader accessibility

Multi-tiered standards implementation approach that considers different organizational capacities while maintaining ethical principles

Balanced approach between global safety standards and regional autonomy in science and technology governance

Integration of enforcement mechanisms within legal frameworks (like EU AI Act) while maintaining open, consensus-driven standards development processes

Combination of North-South technology transfer with South-to-South learning networks to reduce dependency while leveraging existing expertise

The basic rational for that is that all the anticipated emerging sciences and technologies that we identify in the radar will basically radically transform some of the most basic features of our reality. And this transformation will actually challenge some of the most fundamental assumption we have about what it means to be human.

Speaker

Manuel Gustavo Isaac

Reason

This comment is deeply philosophical and thought-provoking because it moves beyond technical discussions to examine the existential implications of technological advancement. It introduces the concept that emerging technologies don’t just change how we work or communicate, but fundamentally challenge our understanding of human identity and existence.

Impact

This comment elevated the entire discussion from practical implementation issues to fundamental questions about humanity’s future. It introduced the ‘Planetarized Humanity’ concept and shifted the conversation toward anticipatory governance, influencing subsequent speakers to consider human agency and ethical dimensions more deeply.

So it’s not only about having a seat above the table, it’s also about money. Creating scientific innovations requires allocation of resources, investments, transfers of technology, building human talent, and ensure embedded in justice, equity, and flourishing of local communities, not just mere access.

Speaker

Shamira Ahmed

Reason

This comment cuts through diplomatic language to address the fundamental issue of power and resource distribution in global science cooperation. It challenges the notion that representation alone is sufficient and demands concrete resource allocation and genuine equity.

Impact

This comment brought a critical perspective that grounded the idealistic discussions in practical realities. It shifted the conversation from access-focused solutions to justice-focused approaches, influencing the discussion toward more substantive considerations of structural inequalities in global science cooperation.

You can never prevent a standard or a product or a service bad actors. But we can do the best that we can to elevate what we think is the most appropriate to a place where it can be enforced.

Speaker

Karen Mulberry

Reason

This comment acknowledges the inherent limitations of standards and governance frameworks while maintaining pragmatic optimism. It’s insightful because it recognizes that perfect prevention of misuse is impossible, but systematic elevation of ethical practices through enforceable standards is achievable.

Impact

This response to the UK Horizon scandal question provided a realistic framework for thinking about technology governance. It influenced the discussion by introducing the concept that standards must be coupled with enforcement mechanisms, and that the goal is harm reduction rather than perfect prevention.

And I was wondering if the panelists would have further insights on how we can keep and uplift that human dimension, that human agency in our conversations, in the development of anticipatory-level governance also, as some of them were highlighting.

Speaker

Maricela Munoz

Reason

This question synthesized the various threads of the discussion and identified a crucial gap – that technical discussions about standards, infrastructure, and governance often lose sight of human agency and dignity. It challenged the panel to center humanity in their technological solutions.

Impact

This question served as a crucial turning point that brought the discussion full circle back to human-centered approaches. It prompted Karen Mulberry to discuss IEEE’s social technology group and reinforced the importance of considering human impacts in all technological development, not just as an afterthought.

What we discussed today is not just about developing programs, or it’s actually about the brilliant minds in understanding different issues in underserved regions to the global scientific community… we cannot afford, of course, to leave any talent behind.

Speaker

Amal Kasry

Reason

This closing comment reframes the entire discussion from a deficit model (helping underserved regions) to an asset model (brilliant minds that the global community needs). It’s insightful because it positions inclusion not as charity but as necessity for solving global challenges.

Impact

This comment provided a powerful synthesis that elevated the moral imperative for inclusive e-science. It shifted the framing from humanitarian aid to global necessity, reinforcing that diversity in scientific participation is essential for addressing complex global challenges like climate change and sustainable development.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing multiple layers of complexity and moving beyond technical implementation to examine deeper questions of human identity, power structures, and global equity. Manuel’s philosophical framing of ‘Planetarized Humanity’ set a tone that encouraged other speakers to think beyond immediate technical solutions. Shamira’s direct challenge about resource allocation brought necessary critical perspective that prevented the discussion from remaining in abstract idealism. Karen’s pragmatic acknowledgment of limitations in standards enforcement provided realistic grounding, while Maricela’s question about human agency served as a crucial synthesis point. Amal’s closing reframing elevated the moral imperative by positioning inclusion as global necessity rather than charity. Together, these comments created a rich, multi-dimensional conversation that addressed technical, philosophical, economic, and ethical dimensions of e-science governance, demonstrating the interconnected nature of the WSIS Action Lines and the complexity of creating truly inclusive global scientific cooperation.

How can we translate standards to practice to prevent disasters like the UK horizon scandal, especially with the complexity of AI?

Speaker

Anthony Wong (IFIT president)

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap between having technical standards and ensuring their ethical implementation in real-world applications, particularly as AI systems become more complex and potentially harmful

How can we keep and uplift the human dimension and human agency in conversations about digital and technological transitions?

Speaker

Maricela Munoz (JESDA)

Explanation

This highlights the need to maintain focus on human-centered approaches in technology development and governance, ensuring that technological advancement serves humanity rather than replacing human agency

How to address bias in AI processes and datasets?

Speaker

Karen Mulberry (IEEE)

Explanation

This is crucial for ensuring AI systems are fair and equitable, particularly when they impact different populations and communities globally

How to ensure standards don’t increase the divide between different actors in industries based on organizational size and capabilities?

Speaker

Manuel Gustavo Isaac (GESDA)

Explanation

This addresses the risk that technical standards might inadvertently create barriers for smaller organizations or developing countries, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities

How to make complex scientific content relevant and accessible to stakeholders with different worldviews and conceptions?

Speaker

Manuel Gustavo Isaac (GESDA)

Explanation

This is essential for effective science communication and diplomacy, ensuring that scientific knowledge can be effectively translated across different cultural and conceptual frameworks

How to move from North-South dependency to South-led partnerships and South-to-South learning ecosystems?

Speaker

Shamira Ahmed (Delft University)

Explanation

This addresses the need to decolonize scientific cooperation and create more equitable partnerships that respect local knowledge and capabilities

How to ensure actual allocation of resources that supports local science, technology, and innovation ecosystems beyond just having representation?

Speaker

Shamira Ahmed (Delft University)

Explanation

This highlights that meaningful participation in global science requires not just seats at the table but actual financial investment and resource allocation to build local capabilities

Summary

This discussion focused on the importance of professional standards for AI development and testing, with particular emphasis on generative and agentic AI applications. The conversation was moderated by Moira De Roche and featured participants from various countries sharing their experiences and perspectives on AI ethics and professional responsibility.

Jimson Olufuye from Nigeria shared his experience using generative AI for government-citizen services, highlighting both the benefits and risks, particularly noting how AI was misused for disinformation during Nigeria’s 2023 political period. A key debate emerged between panelists Don Gotterbarn and Margaret Havey regarding whether AI requires separate ethical frameworks or if existing professional ethics standards are sufficient. Gotterbarn argued against creating specific “AI ethics,” advocating instead for applying traditional professional values and practices to AI development contexts. Havey countered that AI presents unique challenges, particularly for non-developers who must work with AI systems trained by others and deal with issues like bias and multiple AI models.

The discussion extensively examined the UK Post Office Horizon scandal as a cautionary example of what can happen when technology fails and human oversight is inadequate. Participants debated whether this represented a technological failure or a failure of human judgment and professional responsibility. The conversation addressed the challenge of balancing innovation with professional responsibility, particularly as AI technology advances rapidly. Questions were raised about how to establish global standards when different regions have varying cultural and regulatory contexts.

The panel concluded that organizations like IFIP can serve as catalysts for developing ethical AI frameworks, with emphasis on training, accountability, and ensuring that professional standards extend from developers to CEOs and board members.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Professional Standards and Ethics for AI Development**: The core debate centered on whether AI requires new ethical frameworks or if existing professional ethics standards are sufficient. Panelists discussed the need for developers and organizations to maintain professional responsibility while working with cutting-edge AI technology.

– **Real-world Implementation Challenges**: Participants shared experiences using generative and agentic AI in business contexts, highlighting both successes (like government-citizen services automation) and concerns about misinformation, bias, and the need for proper data quality and testing.

– **The UK Post Office Horizon Scandal as a Cautionary Tale**: This case study dominated much of the discussion, illustrating how technological failures combined with human negligence led to devastating consequences. Panelists used this as an example of what could happen with AI systems if proper professional standards aren’t maintained.

– **Organizational Integration and Responsibility**: The conversation explored how to properly embed AI tools throughout organizations rather than having isolated AI teams, emphasizing the need for training at all levels from CEOs to end users, and establishing clear accountability structures.

– **Global Standards vs. Cultural Differences**: Participants grappled with the challenge of creating universal professional standards for AI while acknowledging that different regions have varying cultural values, regulations, and ethical considerations that affect AI development and deployment.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how IT professionals can maintain ethical standards and professional responsibility while developing and implementing AI systems, with a focus on preventing disasters like the UK Post Office scandal and establishing frameworks for responsible AI adoption across organizations globally.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a serious, professional tone throughout, reflecting the gravity of the subject matter. While collaborative and constructive, there was an underlying urgency driven by real-world examples of technological failures causing human harm. The tone became particularly somber when discussing the Post Office scandal and its tragic consequences, but remained forward-looking as participants worked toward practical solutions and frameworks for professional AI development standards.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Moira De Roche**: Discussion moderator, uses generative AI daily for creating learning content

– **Jimson Olufuye**: Principal Consultant of Contemporary Consulting (Abuja, Nigeria), Chair of the Africa City Alliance (Abuja, Nigeria), involved in digitalization and G2C (Government-to-Citizen) services

– **Don Gotterbarn**: Retiree, expert in AI ethics and software development standards

– **Margaret Havey**: Works in an organization providing networks and communications for government departments

– **Anthony Wong**: Session facilitator/co-moderator

– **Stephen Ibaraki**: Participating remotely, moderator and conference participant, travels extensively for conferences

– **Damith Hettihewa**:

– **Liz Eastwood**: Participating remotely, asked questions about the British Post Office scandal

– **Audience**: Identified as “Ian” – Reviews AI abstracts, based in Asia

**Additional speakers:**

– None identified beyond those in the provided speakers names list

# Discussion Report: Professional Standards for AI Development and Testing

## Executive Summary

This international discussion, moderated by Moira De Roche, brought together experts from multiple countries to examine professional standards in AI development and testing. The conversation featured participants including Jimson Olufuye from Nigeria, Don Gotterbarn (a retiree with extensive experience in computing ethics), Margaret Havey (who provides networks and communications for government departments), Anthony Wong (session facilitator), Stephen Ibaraki (participating remotely), Damith Hettihewa, Elizabeth Eastwood (remote participant), and an audience member identified as Ian from Asia.

The discussion explored whether AI requires new ethical frameworks or if existing professional standards are sufficient, how to ensure accountability across organisations, and lessons from technological failures such as the UK Post Office Horizon scandal. Participants shared experiences with AI implementation while debating the balance between innovation and professional responsibility.

## The Post Office Horizon Scandal: A Central Warning

The UK Post Office Horizon scandal served as a recurring reference point throughout the discussion, illustrating the consequences of inadequate professional standards and oversight. Elizabeth Eastwood raised critical questions about how ICT professionals can convince management to implement proper testing and accept responsibility for decisions.

Different perspectives emerged on the scandal’s primary causes. Margaret Havey focused on implementation failures, arguing that problems stemmed from inadequate testing and poor organisational processes. She emphasised making leadership legally liable for IT system failures.

Moira De Roche offered a different view: “It was a failure in my opinion, more of human relations than of technology. So the technology let them down, but it was the actions taken by people using the output of their technology… Just relying on the data was a failure in human resource management.” She argued that management should have recognised patterns when multiple long-term employees suddenly received poor performance reviews.

Don Gotterbarn noted how IFIP’s code of ethics can serve as legal evidence when people claim no computer standards exist, highlighting the practical importance of established professional frameworks.

## Approaches to AI Ethics and Professional Standards

A significant discussion emerged between different approaches to AI ethics. Don Gotterbarn argued against creating separate “AI ethics,” stating: “I think that it’s basically a mistake to invent something called AI ethics. What happens is ethical decisions in general have to respond to contexts and situations… When you make that list and you start to make details, it fits a very narrow context.”

Gotterbarn advocated for applying traditional professional values through IFIP’s international code of ethics, contending that fundamental professional responsibilities remain universal despite cultural differences.

Margaret Havey presented a different perspective, arguing that AI presents unique challenges: “So most, I’d say the vast majority of people out there working with these products are not developers… And we have to be concerned about the multiple agents, the multiple types of AI that are in use and all the different models and all the data and regulations. So it becomes a different problem.” She emphasised that AI systems are taking on human personas and replacing human workers, requiring new considerations.

## Real-World Implementation Experiences

Jimson Olufuye shared insights from implementing generative AI for government-citizen services in Nigeria, highlighting both benefits and risks. He noted how AI was misused for disinformation during Nigeria’s 2023 political period, emphasising that AI output quality depends entirely on input data quality and that professional responsibility must focus on accountability regardless of technological advancement.

Moira De Roche, who uses generative AI daily for creating learning content, stressed the importance of human oversight. She advocated for embedding AI throughout organisational processes rather than having isolated AI teams, with comprehensive training needed at all levels. She also noted specific limitations, such as Microsoft’s image generation tools getting spelling wrong, reinforcing the “garbage in, garbage out” principle.

## Responsibility for Testing and Validation

A notable disagreement emerged regarding who bears primary responsibility for testing AI outputs. Don Gotterbarn argued that developers bear primary responsibility, using a pacemaker analogy: just as patients shouldn’t be expected to test medical devices, customers shouldn’t bear primary responsibility for validating AI systems. He criticised Microsoft’s assertion that customers should test software.

Moira De Roche, drawing from daily AI use, emphasised that users must carefully review AI-generated output, distinguishing this from traditional product testing since AI generates content dynamically. This reflected broader tensions between idealistic professional standards and practical implementation realities.

## Global Standards and Cultural Considerations

Ian from Asia raised fundamental questions about global AI standardisation: “As a world, as a global cooperation, how do we come up that the world, when we use a certain AI, we would be able to agree on what we’ll be using, when in fact we have so many different world views. The African might feel certain parts of the world might feel discriminated, the other parts of the world might be discriminated because of our standards.”

Ian specifically highlighted concerns about AI models trained on different regional data (European, American, Asian models) and resulting discrimination issues. This prompted discussion about establishing universal standards while respecting cultural differences.

Stephen Ibaraki suggested that international cooperation through bodies like IFIP could help coordinate responsible AI development globally, mentioning the Singapore AI Foundation as an example. Damith Hettihewa supported this view, noting the emergence of data scientists as a new profession and the importance of data privacy regulations.

## Organisational Integration and New Challenges

The discussion explored integrating AI tools throughout organisations rather than treating them as isolated technical solutions. Anthony Wong, reading from a BCS CEO statement, emphasised that professional standards must extend to CEOs and boards, not just IT professionals.

Damith Hettihewa highlighted the complexity of modern AI systems, noting concerns about “multiple agents, multiple types of AI that are in use and all the different models and all the data and regulations.” This complexity creates new challenges for traditional professional standards frameworks.

Moira De Roche emphasised the distinction between generative AI and general AI, advocating for what she called “artificial intelligence with human intelligence” – ensuring human oversight and validation of AI outputs.

## Ongoing Challenges and Unresolved Questions

Several critical issues remained unresolved:

**Innovation vs. Responsibility**: How to balance rapid AI advancement with thorough testing and validation requirements continues to challenge organisations.

**Enforcement Mechanisms**: Questions about ensuring legal liability and enforcement mechanisms have sufficient impact to hold organisations accountable for AI system failures were raised but not resolved.

**Cultural Fragmentation**: Addressing fragmentation of AI standards across different cultural and regulatory contexts while maintaining global interoperability remains complex.

**Practical Implementation**: How ICT professionals can effectively convince management to implement proper testing and responsible deployment practices continues to be challenging.

## Areas of Agreement

Despite disagreements on approaches, participants generally agreed on several points:

– Professional accountability remains fundamental regardless of technological advancement

– The Post Office scandal and similar failures result from human decision-making and organisational failures rather than inherent technology problems

– Data quality is crucial for AI system effectiveness

– International cooperation through bodies like IFIP is valuable for coordinating global standards

– Proper oversight and validation processes are essential

## Future Directions

The discussion concluded with general commitments to continue dialogue through platforms like WSIS and AI for Good. Moira De Roche mentioned developing frameworks for generative AI skills and training, while IFIP participants discussed exploring standards accreditation and serving as neutral facilitators for interoperability standards.

## Conclusion

This discussion revealed the complexity of establishing professional standards for AI development and testing. While participants disagreed on whether AI requires new ethical frameworks or can rely on existing professional standards, they recognised the urgency of addressing accountability, testing, and implementation challenges.

The Post Office Horizon scandal served as a powerful reminder of the consequences when technology fails and professional oversight is inadequate. As AI systems become increasingly integrated into critical functions, the discussion highlighted that the greatest challenges lie in human and organisational factors: ensuring proper training, establishing clear accountability, maintaining cultural sensitivity while pursuing global standards, and balancing innovation with responsibility.

The conversation demonstrated that while technical solutions are important, success in AI governance depends heavily on addressing human and organisational challenges. The role of international bodies like IFIP in facilitating ongoing discussions and developing practical frameworks emerged as important for responsible AI development, though many questions remain unresolved and require continued attention.

Moira De Roche: Good morning, everybody. Thank you for joining us for our discussion on the importance of professional standards for AI development and testing. I said in the description that I want this to be a very So, rather than us talking at you, I’d really rather hear your issues with AI and particularly agentic AI. And where you think that the professionals, in other words, people who write the code and create the products, where you think the responsibility is. Sorry about that. Let’s put that on silent. And people have finished throwing things at me. Okay, so, who has had experience with using particularly generative AI in their business and what has been the outcome? Somebody, please. Timson, you look like you should have an answer for me, please.

Jimson Olufuye: Yes. Good morning, everybody. My name is Principal Consultant of Contemporary Consulting, based in Abuja, Nigeria, and the Chair of the Africa City Alliance, based also in Abuja, Nigeria. Yes, I’ve used generative AI and the agentic AI, and with very useful factors. At this moment, we are developing some agents for clients. We are involved in digitalization, G2C, Governmental Citizen Services. which have been successful normally, but we are automating it more readily so that it can serve more citizens. Of course, the issue of ethics is important, and we have seen other ones that aim at disinformation and misinformation. So the issue of ethics matters a lot, even in the use of the in the algorithm and also in terms of data. So the data has to be good. If it’s not good, it’s not going to give the right response. And also, as I mentioned, it should be for good. We’re in the conference of AI for good. So that should be the focus of every developer, everyone working in this field. I belong to a number of platforms where I’ve seen generative AI deployed, and it was really missed during the political period in Nigeria in 2023. It was a massive deception that we saw, and it was very worrisome. So the issue is how do we ensure that those that are developing comply with the rules, follow the rules professionally, and that’s why this session is very important. That’s why I think it’s very, very important.

Moira De Roche: Sorry, thank you, Anthony. Do you think, do you or anyone here think the ethical considerations are different for AI than they were in writing any program? So AI is just taking it that one step further, because we’re in a way putting it in AI’s hands rather than doing it ourselves, but do you think the ethical considerations are the same or different? Anybody like to answer that? Is the panelist entitled to weigh in on anything?

Don Gotterbarn: I think that it’s basically a mistake to invent something called AI ethics. What happens is ethical decisions in general have to respond to contexts and situations, and it is a mistake, I believe, when you set up ethics laws and ethics compliance organizations. When you go into an organization and set up a list and say, this is what the compliance officer does, and you have to comply with these ethics, people think they are doing ethics when they take their pen or their cursor and check the box and say, I did a test on this system, so I complied with ethics. When you make that list and you start to make details, it fits a very narrow context. One of the wonderful things I love about computing is the context is always changing, and so you have to have a certain kind of flexibility. And those judgments don’t come from the top down as enforcement laws, unfortunately. They come from the practitioner who says, when I’m developing this piece of software, I have to follow certain values or practices? And I think there’s a problem in the way we phrase the question frequently because it’s how to punish the evildoer who’s unethical, the salesman who sells you AI telling you things it can’t, telling you things it can’t, can’t. What we need to focus on as developers is not worrying about these risks, but what are the positive ethical things we can do so when I deliver a product, it helps you and it’s directed toward you. The point seems to be that we ought to think about not doing technical AI and following, well, I’m going to use this large language model and I’m going to use this sanitized test. And once I’ve done that, everything is okay. It’s most likely not okay because the context you’re working in is a little bit different. And we have to get the developers and the programmers to go values. And when they do things, think about those issues. And this is a top down. First I have to press it. Okay. Press the button. I think there’s, I don’t necessarily

Margaret Havey: agree with you. So most, I’d say the vast majority of people out there working with these products are not developers. There are people like in my organization, we do the, we provide networks and communications for all the government departments. And we are not, we’re not developers. And we have to be very careful. and the other people with ethics on the way it’s being used and on whether or not there is bias in the models that have been trained by somebody else, whether or not the data is anything useful to us. And we have to be concerned about the multiple agents, the multiple types of AI that are in use and all the different models and all the data and regulations. So it becomes a different problem. And I don’t, I think that involved in AI are quite different because AI is taking on personas and their ethics and using likenesses of actors, for example. They don’t have, in movies, they age people and they de-age them. And they used to be three actors and now there’s just one. And then they do the rest with AI. So it’s a whole different situation in the real world, as opposed to the world of developers, who are, by the way, going to be replaced by AI.

Don Gotterbarn: I have to be careful talking as a retiree. That is, I’m talking about the development side where the ethics seems to be the same. There’s AI development, there’s AI applications that are out there, there’s AI hardware that has it embedded in it. And the piece that I’m talking about is that let’s do the development of the AI systems and have those ethical standards there. But I also think that those same values apply to the applications areas. I agree with you with all of these different things you have to deal with. You had difficulty dealing with something called email. and we had to worry about the ethics of email and who did it and and people invented email ethics and as I utter that now I would think you’re you ought to have a smile on your face for some absurdity about such a concept and that that’s the approach.

Moira De Roche: While we’re asking the questions I also want us to think about how we make sure that and our AI, not AI generally, but how we embed generative AI in our organizations and how it’s becomes part of the process in our organizations so that it’s not something other than. We don’t have a team of people using generative AI to do something and the rest of the organization carries on as before. So that’s a very important consideration with using generative AI or indeed agentic AI and so know that it won’t be perfect but if you set your prompts correctly and then review the output carefully it’s an excellent tool. I use it every day in my work to create learning content and for the most part it’s very very good. I’m not saying it’s not fantastic. Microsoft’s image generation tools for instance always get the spelling wrong once they put the words in the images. So it’s a very good tool and like all tools it must be used responsibly and understanding the power of it is so important. Anthony, are you going to read Elizabeth’s question?

Anthony Wong: Yes, we’ve got Elizabeth online and she’s got a question about the recent and Minister of Justice report from the UK and in support of our member society the BCS, the British Computer Society, about the scandal around the Post Office Horizon project. So Elizabeth, open to you to post the questions for the panel. Please. Do you mean me, Anthony? Elizabeth, yes, you are. I don’t have the question here for the panel, but it is indeed an issue. So please discuss, because I cannot say much about it. Sorry, not Lizbeth, Elizabeth Eastwood, who is online. Yeah. Thank you, Lizbeth. Are you online? No, I don’t see her. Do you want to read Elizabeth’s question for the panel in relation to what are we going to do with such an instance as the Fujitsu post office scandal, which is not so much about AI, but when AI really takes on board. It could have even more deviations. So what should we think about this panel on the professional standards for AI development testing? Because that’s the topic for today’s conversation. So I’d like to open that to the panel for discussion. When Elizabeth comes online, I’m sure she would further elaborate on the question. Thank you.

Moira De Roche: It went off by itself, it doesn’t like me. It was a failure in my opinion, more of human relations than of technology. So the technology let them down, but it was the actions taken by people using the output of their technology. And it wasn’t just AI, it was technology written to measure people’s productivity. And in the UK, people can set up very small post offices. So some of them put their life savings into these little post offices. And because of incorrect output from the system, they were fired and actually lost their livelihood. And there has been a movie about it. Some people even committed suicide. But my question there is, was that AI’s fault or was it for not checking the data? If a whole lot of people who worked with a post office in most cases for several years, suddenly get bad reviews, surely you should say there’s something wrong here. Just relying on the data was a failure in human resource management, not so much a failure of the system, but a failure of what came out of the system. Back in my day, when I was a programmer, we used to talk about garbage in, garbage out. So that was garbage out, and it was a failure of the system or failure of AI.

Margaret Havey: In my opinion, I think it’s a failure of the way it was implemented, of the implementation. And so that does go back to standards. So how people are, how well they’re doing their implementation, how well they’re organizing whatever product it is, and the lack of testing, etc. That’s my view. And I may add to that, taking further on garbage in, garbage out.

Damith Hettihewa: So I think the fundamental shift is the outcome of generative AI or agentic AI is output is as much good as the input, the data set, the data that is being used for training the algorithms. So in that context, I think I agree with Don on no need to add, there are new disciplines that is coming out, particularly the training of the algorithms based on data, the new profession of data scientist, you need to look at anything need to be reinvented in that context. The new professionals of data scientists, along the guidelines of data privacy and protection regulations, are there any new attributes to be added? As you said, the HR department, so the output was impacted by the input data. So management of data and using the data in secure and without compromising the privacy of the individuals or the data, how the data scientists need to have maybe few new attributes on the ethical standards. So that’s what I thought we need to probably consider at this point. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question from our colleague Stephen Ibaraki

Moira De Roche: who couldn’t be with us today, but I think it’s an important question. How should RCT professionals balance AI with their responsibility to standards and to maintaining public trust, especially when working with cutting edge AI projects? So the technology is coming so fast. How can IT professionals make sure that they’re innovative, that they use the cutting edge technology, but don’t lose their professional responsibility? Because a professional is all about ethics, accountability, responsibility. Anybody want to answer that one?

Jimson Olufuye: Yes. Within the context of WSIS, if you look at it closely, Action Line 10 is talking seriously about the ethical dimensions, the information society, the common good, preventing abuse, abusive use of ICT and values. As professionals, this should be what should guide us all the time. In fact, however the technology, it must be responsible to us. We need to have that in mind. Even as we develop, as we program and use data, there has to be some form of key switch, I believe that. Key switch, so that it will, however it is, it should still be accountable. Accountability is very important. If we don’t want to be taken over completely, accountability is important. and that guys, me too, even us too, and I tell that to our personnel that this is very important even as we provide products for the local consumption of our people. And even as a professional organization, even in NCS, we have a code of ethics, you know, and people that are violated, we bring them to some panel, you know, if there are challenges necessarily with the post office product, it’s a serious issue. People have died. People have died. There’s a gap somewhere there. And then even in some of our products, we have some glitches, actually. So we should be responsible to thorough testing. So it’s part of our responsibility as professional to review our data regularly. And then as you said, yes, the human side is also very important, you know, but we are the primary responsible people, because we are the creator of it, no matter what we created it. So as professional, the public really put a lot of confidence away. So that is the basis for all professionals in terms of work, whatever we do.

Moira De Roche: Thank you, Jimson. And part of our responsibility of trust is to accept that we will get output, but then to check that output to make sure that it actually is what it should be. It’s very easy to use generative AI, get something fantastic, and then it’s wrong or it’s off the mark. So it’s very important to have that. One of my colleagues calls it artificial intelligence with human intelligence. So you use artificial intelligence and then you use human intelligence to… to check the outputs. I think we have some questions online. Thank you so much. Can I ask my question? Ian, can we hear your question please? Thank you so much. I’d like to say a comment and then ask a question. Will that be okay? Welcome. Okay. Tell us who you are and where you’re from please.

Audience: My name is Ian. I do review AI abstracts. I’m here in Asia. And your question? I’d like to comment first that for all of us to realize that when we use the generic learning, this are trained on certain data. And it is vital that when we train this AI, we have to declare on which data they have been trained to. For example, that’s where here in Asia, or this AI that we’re using train on European models, American models or whatever models because the standards, the profiles would be different. Here in Asia, some of the models are very particular that we can never mention anything related to religion. What I’m trying to say is that these days, we haven’t got any AI which does not have a degree of discrimination. And as you can see, the world is so diverse that when we just say, professionalize, make standards. This is where my question comes in. As a world, as a global cooperation, how do we come up that the world, when we use a certain AI, we would be able to agree on what we’ll be using, when in fact we have so many different world views. The African might feel certain parts of the world might feel discriminated, the other parts of the world might be discriminated because of our standards. The Asian standard is different from the African, the African is different from the European, the European is different from the American. So how do we intend, from your view, to come up with a standard that would be more or less acceptable? Sorry, can we just wait? I’d just like to ask Stephen Ibaraki to answer, to ask his question and then perhaps to help answer your question. Ibaraki here, and I’m attending remotely. I just want to bring up a comment.

Moira De Roche: Maura, you were talking earlier about the question about AI innovating or innovation occurring in that. How do IT professionals keep up with these things? And then this relates to Ian’s question as well. Again, I think it’s the ideal sort of body because, for example, Singapore has the AI

Stephen Ibaraki: Foundation. And what they’re trying to do is create an open source information, so you can test some of these generative AI models, and you can look at the data as well. And because IFIP is an international, multi-international alliance, They’re a perfect sort of vehicle for taking input from the UN but also from these different government bodies like the AI Foundation out of Singapore. The reason I mention this is because I was there and I was moderating with the gentleman who actually founded the AI Foundation. In terms of being on your data, there is a work on data commons by ITU. In other words, if you have different repositories of data around the world, how can you manage that? How can you ensure some commonality? And they’ve tried to address this with AI for Good, with the focus group in AI health as well as being part of that conversation. And then recently I had a conversation with Yong Kun who won the Turin Award from the ACM in 2018 and Elizabeth for this year. He’s working on a world foundation model. So, he’s indicating through the open source repositories worldwide, he’s suggesting that these will become amalgamated into a world foundation model. So, I guess it’s a sort of a comment and maybe more of some ideas or answers to some of the discussion that’s happened here. Thank you, Stephen.

Don Gotterbarn: Thank you, Stephen. The previous assertion to Stephen’s that says essentially, because there’s differences in the world, there’s no commonality. One of the things that IFIP has done in its representation of many different countries has adopted an international code of ethics. where they find that yes, even if you’re in China and you’re not allowed to mention religion, you do think that it’s your professional responsibility to test it. You do think that if you release software, it should not at least unintentionally harm people. You do think that you should review your software so that when it does things, you make sure that any collateral damage may be minimized. And I’m not going to repeat the whole code of ethics here. It’s available. But this is the common thing with professionalism and responsibility to your community. So to say that you have this Asian model that says don’t mention religion, well, there’s some atheists in the United States who don’t mention religion. That doesn’t change the way in which they develop software. That doesn’t change the way in which they develop my hearing aids so that I can hear what’s going on here. In any country you’re in, if you make it so that it would randomly buzz and make noises so nobody in the audience could hear, we would all agree whatever country you’re from, that’s an abysmal failure. And if you didn’t pay attention to that, we’d also say it’s not a technological failure. It’s a moral failure. So we have to be very careful. We all admit there are differences. And there’s these sets of responsibilities. One of the things that’s scary is we’re starting to repeat a kind of relocation. It’s on. It’s on. Okay. We’re starting at least it says it’s on. It’s red if we can believe that. Don’t double it up. Okay. Is the repeat of a certain kind of failure that went on early in computing where we took certain responsibility and gave it to other people. In the U.S., there’s a company called Microsoft, and I participated in some hearings. Microsoft was asserting that the customer is responsible for testing the software. Now, the head of that committee had just had a pacemaker installed, and I asked him if he thought he was responsible for testing Microsoft software in that pacemaker when it didn’t work. And when you deliver a software product, there’s a presumption that it will deliver accurate material, and you will provide some evidence and say it’s trained on so you know what to be worried about. But we should not be expected to have to be the people who test the results, so that when we get results from generative AI that says, well, now we’ve got to review the data and look things up to see if it got it right, the presumption is, and when it gets integrated in industry, is it will have gotten it right. The responsibility is on the developers and the testing to make sure we understand what the errors are and what those problems are. I am also there. But that’s a different thing. Keeps going off. This doesn’t like me, I’m telling you. When you develop a product, you then test it properly. Generative AI is a different story. You’re asking generative AI a question and getting some output. You have to not

Moira De Roche: test review the output to make sure it’s relevant, to make sure that it hasn’t gone off on its own little voyage of discovery, that it’s relevant to your topic. So it’s not testing what generative AI output is, it’s reviewing what generative AI gives you as output. So it’s different than a product that somebody needs to test. It’s more case of the generative AI tool giving you some information or ask it a question and then make sure that what it gives you as output does in fact answer the question you asked, not in detail because the generative AI gives you that detail. So it is a little different to normal product testing in that you’re not going to check every single fact in the output. You might check all the links to make sure that they’re valid, but it’s not the same as developing a product. It’s generating output on the fly. That concept called the responsibility gap. So I’m not responsible for the accuracy of the

Anthony Wong: information you have to test it. Thank you for that intervention. I’d like to read a statement from the new CEO of BCS, the Chartered Institute for IT. BCS is a member of IFIP and I’d just like to read her statement just released recently about the UK panel. And she said, quote, unless everyone responsible for the development, leadership and governance of technology is held accountable to robust professional standards, which is what and Mrs. Margaret Hethihewa for joining us for this evening’s discussion about with genuine authority, another tragedy like Horizon is inevitable. That accountability, she said, must extend to CEOs and boards, not just IT professionals, who are often without technical backgrounds, who understand the complex ethical challenges inherent in IT implementation. And she continued, Horizon is not self-aware AI acting at the moment, but can you imagine the devastation that could compound with AI agents running in many installations and many places. It could devastate lives because of a failure in professional behaviour and a lack of multidisciplinary understanding, spanning technology, the law. And I’d like this panel to ponder that statement and tell the world what IP3, which stands for professionalism, what should we do to address some of these challenges coming up. So Chair, Moderator Moira, if you can lead that discussion and come up with some concrete actions that we should start contemplating on in IFIP and IP3 to work with the BCS and our member societies in the world and with the UN agencies, not just talking about principles and standards, but how do we actually start the journey to look at human rights. Thank you for that question. It does switch itself off, trust me.

Moira De Roche: IP3, which stands for the International Professional Practice Partnership, is all about trying to make sure that and other IT professionals adhere to a level of standards and professionalism which include accountability, responsibility, ethical behavior, competence, etc. And we are against all those features. We also are moving towards doing some ISO accreditation around software engineering and software programming where we will make sure that people adhere to those ISO standards as well as the IP3 standards. What I plan to do in the coming weeks and months is to look at, as a result of several of the conversations I’ve had this week, is to look at developing a framework, in the generative AI in particular, skills and training across the board because we don’t only need to train users on generative AI, we need to train right from the CEO right down to the bottom of the organization. And that is how we will embed it in the processes of the organization and have the, it’s a little like putting a new mechanical process in where there are checks and balances everywhere and where we make sure everybody is trained at every point. So I want to develop a framework to say, OK, for our people at this level, what do they need to know about, and I’m talking specifically about generative AI, because AI is a big subject and AI is not new. We’ve had it on our phones, smartphones, since we’ve had smartphones. Everything on there is run by AI, but I’m talking about the generative AI, which is the tools that we have at our disposal. and Ms. Margaret Havey. I want to make sure that aligned to our professional standards, we have a generative AI and we can test it and make sure that people are adhering to the standards and the framework and even to a standard body of knowledge around a generic or generative AI. It’s such an easy tool. It’s like hey-ho, someone has developed a pencil and paper and therefore we think that they can write because they’ve got a pencil and paper, but we actually have to teach them how to write and have to teach them how to write properly and how to write sensibly. So we need to say, we need to almost go back to ground level and say yes, a very, very powerful tool that the users can use and make sure that they use it for good.

Anthony Wong: Moderator Moira, we’ve got a question from Elizabeth Eastwood who’s now online. Technicians, can you put her on the screen please to post the question?

Liz Eastwood: Thank you. Hello, everybody. Unfortunately, I can’t actually show my face at the moment for complicated reasons, so I do apologise. But yes, I have a question relating specifically to the British Post Office scandal. The scenario where clearly these problems evolved over time, but nobody was willing to put their hands up and say, well, actually, there might be something wrong with the software. So, you know, 26 years later after this scandal started, the report has come out and being exposed, as Anthony has pointed out, the British Computer Society. have in a nutshell said that what this report does is it exposes the deep deficiencies in professionalism from really every area from technology and law to the executive management. So it is the legal system and it is the CEOs, the executives who are not stopping to consider implications of what they’re doing and what they’re saying and what their responsibilities are. The worst part about this whole debacle was that the legal system relied upon computer evidence as trusted proof of the postmaster’s guilt. It’s shocking, it’s appalling. Completely, quite clearly, the computer evidence should not be trusted. Both the software company who wrote the software or inherited the software from previous incarnations of that particular company, the software company and the British Post Office, they both knew this. You should not have been trusting that software. So what could happen if a similar scenario arises when software has actually evolved using AI? How can ICT professionals, even if they have been trained, highly competent, how can they persuade top management to do the right thing such as pilot the software adequately and pilot in stages? I mean, in the UK, we were talking about something like many, many thousands of users scattered right across the country, all of whom are on different communication links, distances and communication types, which would not have helped. But still, they should have piloted the software. In stages, prior to having a national rollout, how does an ICT professional convince CEO management, top level management, to do the right thing and to accept responsibility for their decisions? So, we know that we must have qualified IT professionals. We know that organisations need to employ these people and make sure that they’re properly qualified. It’s not an easy task, so they need to be highly competent.

Margaret Havey: What is the best way to ensure that large companies like the post office do actually insist on employing fully qualified professionals in the IT sector within their organisation? That’s my question to the panel. It’s Margaret here. I think one of the best ways to do that is to make sure that they have, we can do that through a code of ethics, which we do have, and that includes the management and all the responsibilities to make sure that they know that they are liable. And that’s when they will pay attention, when they know they are liable, and when there’s teeth behind that. And that, I believe, is the way to do that.

Liz Eastwood: And how do we make sure there’s teeth behind it?

Margaret Havey: Teeth, how do we get teeth behind it? Well, that’s a matter of, let’s see, your leadership has to agree to work with, we do have that, and they do know that they’re responsible because the minister is a government organisation, so you’re headed by a minister, and they are responsible to their superiors, and it’s a very dire, dire consequence. and Ms. Margaret Hennigan. And then we have the first question. What are the consequences if they do something wrong? So we just, and they do know about it through our, not so much through our code of ethics, but through just their list of responsibilities, their heads will fall. And that does seem to work for us that’s in the government. Organizations at board level now, know that they have a responsibility for what happens in IT. And it’s a responsibility that company law, certainly in my company, my country, South Africa, and in countries that adhere to the kink, the board is responsible, ultimately responsible for what happens in IT.

Moira De Roche: And it’s up to them to actually know what’s going on. So hopefully we’re moving away from that. Before I get you Damith, can I ask Stephen, if he has any closing remarks? Stephen. Yeah, excuse me.

Stephen Ibaraki: My sound has gone a little bit askew. So hopefully you could hear me. So yeah, I think it’s really a perfect convener for this, but this is being addressed through corporations like Microsoft. They do have a AI for good program, but a responsible AI. And then because IFIP works with both industry and with countries and with UN agencies, we can act as that sort of central hub to address these things and to coordinate amongst all of these bodies. So I believe that we’re in a much better position than before because these kinds of issues are now being looked at. very seriously, and especially as we progress into generative AI. I already mentioned it again. Singapore, I believe, is one of the leaders in this area, so by the corporations as well. And then these concepts are infused throughout this AI for Good conference, but also through the WSIS conference here.

Moira De Roche: Thank you, Stephen, and thank you so much for being with us, to share your wisdom. You can appreciate your being with us at what must be very early in the morning for you. Stephen, I believe, never sleeps. He’s either sitting somewhere adjoined to a conference early in the morning, or he’s traveling. He could be an airline in his own right. Damith, was yours a question? Well, I will, because of the time, I will not go back to, I wanted to go back to Anthony’s question, but rather I will probably make some closing remarks instead. To add to what Stephen said, I-FIF probably can be the catalyst and the nucleus of this whole ethical ethics around AI amongst IT professionals, along with IP3, International Professional Practice Partnership. So Ms. Moira De Roche, firstly, I think Ms. Moira De Roche mentioned about the

Damith Hettihewa: guidelines or the framework development. So I would like to also mention the I-FIF can and will act as a neutral facilitator in this subject amongst the stakeholders. Of course, Ms. Moira De Roche mentioned the capacity building and the training, but I would like to also bring about another attribute, which is interoperability. I-FIF can advocate for interoperability. by collaborating with bodies like IEEE and BCS and all the professional, 40 professional bodies and the agencies ensure the imaging standards are not fragmented, compatible across frontiers and the borders. And finally, continue the ongoing dialogue using the platforms like WSIS and AI for Good, as well as with the partners like UNESCO, etc. on the guidelines or the framework being kept continually improved, looking at new risk techniques and challenges through living documents, regular international forums like WSIS and AI for Good. In short, I FIFC and the Bridge Builder and SAN, etc. Thank you very much.

Moira De Roche: Thank you for your comments and thank you all for attending and for participating and those of the panellists giving some good insights. Thank you to Stephen, Lisbeth and Elizabeth for joining remotely. And I do have some business cards with me if anybody wants to discuss this more carefully. As I say, I use generative AI every single day in my day job to create learning content. So it works for everybody and the saving in time is phenomenal. And the fact that I FIFC has a code of ethics that is adopted by multiple countries has been used, I can testify, in legal cases when people have said there are no computer standards. You show them the Code of Ethics and the number of people who have adopted it, and that’s one of the ways you can convince people to move positively or use it as a club, if you will, to threaten lawsuits.

Agreement points

Professional accountability and responsibility are fundamental regardless of technology advancement

Speakers

– Don Gotterbarn
– Margaret Havey
– Jimson Olufuye
– Anthony Wong
– Moira De Roche

Arguments

IFIP’s international code of ethics provides common professional standards across different countries and contexts

Professional accountability requires making leadership legally liable for IT system failures

Professional responsibility must focus on accountability and following established codes of ethics regardless of technology advancement

Professional standards must extend to CEOs and boards, not just IT professionals, with genuine accountability

IFIP’s code of ethics can be used as legal evidence when people claim no computer standards exist

Summary

All speakers agree that professional accountability and adherence to ethical standards are essential, with responsibility extending from developers to executive leadership. They support using established codes of ethics and legal frameworks to ensure accountability.

Topics

Digital standards | Human rights principles | Consumer protection

Implementation failures stem from human and organizational issues rather than pure technology problems

Speakers

– Margaret Havey
– Moira De Roche
– Liz Eastwood

Arguments

Implementation failures stem from inadequate testing and poor organizational processes rather than technology itself

The scandal represents failure of human relations and management rather than pure technology failure

Legal systems inappropriately relied on computer evidence as trusted proof without proper validation

Summary

Speakers agree that the Post Office scandal and similar failures result from poor human decision-making, inadequate testing, and organizational failures rather than inherent technology problems. They emphasize that proper oversight and validation processes are crucial.

Topics

Consumer protection | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Data quality is fundamental to AI system performance and ethical outcomes

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Damith Hettihewa
– Audience

Arguments

Quality of AI output depends entirely on the quality of input data and training datasets

Data scientists need new ethical attributes aligned with data privacy and protection regulations

Different regions have varying cultural and regulatory requirements that affect AI training and deployment

Summary

Speakers agree that the quality of AI systems depends fundamentally on the quality of input data and training datasets. They recognize that data governance, privacy protection, and cultural considerations are essential for ethical AI development.

Topics

Data governance | Privacy and data protection | Digital standards

International cooperation and standardization are essential for responsible AI development

Speakers

– Stephen Ibaraki
– Damith Hettihewa
– Don Gotterbarn

Arguments

International cooperation through bodies like IFIP can coordinate responsible AI development globally

IFIP can serve as a neutral facilitator and advocate for interoperability standards across borders

IFIP’s international code of ethics provides common professional standards across different countries and contexts

Summary

Speakers agree that international bodies like IFIP are crucial for coordinating global AI standards and facilitating cooperation across borders. They see IFIP as uniquely positioned to bridge different stakeholders and maintain ongoing dialogue.

Topics

Digital standards | Capacity development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that proper testing and implementation processes are the responsibility of developers and organizations, not end users. They reject shifting responsibility to customers or users for validating system accuracy.

Speakers

– Don Gotterbarn
– Margaret Havey

Arguments

Developers bear primary responsibility for proper testing and ensuring systems work correctly before deployment

Implementation failures stem from inadequate testing and poor organizational processes rather than technology itself

Topics

Digital standards | Consumer protection

Both speakers emphasize that AI governance and professional standards must involve all organizational levels, particularly executive leadership, rather than being limited to technical staff.

Speakers

– Moira De Roche
– Anthony Wong

Arguments

Comprehensive training frameworks are needed from CEO level down to all organizational levels

Professional standards must extend to CEOs and boards, not just IT professionals, with genuine accountability

Topics

Capacity development | Digital standards

Both speakers advocate for global coordination and continuous dialogue through international platforms to address AI challenges and prevent fragmentation of standards.

Speakers

– Stephen Ibaraki
– Damith Hettihewa

Arguments

A world foundation model could help address fragmentation by amalgamating open source repositories globally

Ongoing dialogue through platforms like WSIS and AI for Good is essential for continuous improvement

Topics

Digital standards | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

Ethics should be contextual rather than rigid compliance

Speakers

– Don Gotterbarn
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

AI ethics should not be treated as a separate discipline but as contextual application of existing ethical principles

Professional responsibility must focus on accountability and following established codes of ethics regardless of technology advancement

Explanation

Despite coming from different perspectives, both speakers agree that ethics should be flexible and contextual rather than rigid compliance checklists, while still maintaining accountability to established professional standards.

Topics

Human rights principles | Digital standards

Human oversight remains essential even with advanced AI

Speakers

– Moira De Roche
– Don Gotterbarn
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

Users must review AI output carefully to ensure relevance and accuracy, applying human intelligence to artificial intelligence

Developers bear primary responsibility for proper testing and ensuring systems work correctly before deployment

Professional responsibility must focus on accountability and following established codes of ethics regardless of technology advancement

Explanation

Despite different roles and perspectives, all speakers agree that human oversight and responsibility cannot be abdicated to AI systems, whether at the development, deployment, or usage stages.

Topics

Digital standards | Human rights principles | Consumer protection

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on fundamental principles of professional accountability, the importance of proper testing and implementation processes, the need for comprehensive organizational training, and the value of international cooperation through bodies like IFIP. They agree that failures like the Post Office scandal stem from human and organizational issues rather than technology problems, and that data quality is fundamental to ethical AI outcomes.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles with constructive dialogue on implementation approaches. The agreement spans technical, ethical, and organizational dimensions, suggesting a mature understanding of AI governance challenges. This consensus provides a strong foundation for developing practical frameworks and standards for responsible AI development and deployment through international cooperation.

Different viewpoints

Whether AI ethics should be treated as a separate discipline or as application of existing ethical principles

Speakers

– Don Gotterbarn
– Margaret Havey

Arguments

AI ethics should not be treated as a separate discipline but as contextual application of existing ethical principles

Ethics in AI requires different considerations due to AI taking on personas, using likenesses, and affecting employment

Summary

Gotterbarn argues that creating separate ‘AI ethics’ is a mistake and that practitioners should apply flexible ethical judgment based on established values. Havey contends that AI ethics presents unique challenges because AI systems are taking on human personas, using actor likenesses, and replacing human workers, requiring different considerations.

Topics

Human rights principles | Digital standards | Future of work

Who bears primary responsibility for testing and validating AI outputs

Speakers

– Don Gotterbarn
– Moira De Roche

Arguments

Developers bear primary responsibility for proper testing and ensuring systems work correctly before deployment

Users must review AI output carefully to ensure relevance and accuracy, applying human intelligence to artificial intelligence

Summary

Gotterbarn argues that developers should not shift responsibility to customers and that there should be a presumption of accuracy from developers. De Roche emphasizes that users must carefully review AI-generated output, distinguishing this from traditional product testing as AI generates output on the fly.

Topics

Digital standards | Consumer protection

Primary cause of the Post Office scandal – technology vs. implementation vs. human management failure

Speakers

– Margaret Havey
– Moira De Roche

Arguments

Implementation failures stem from inadequate testing and poor organizational processes rather than technology itself

The scandal represents failure of human relations and management rather than pure technology failure

Summary

Havey focuses on implementation failures, inadequate testing, and lack of proper organizational standards as the root cause. De Roche emphasizes it was primarily a failure of human resource management and decision-making, arguing that management should have recognized patterns when multiple long-term employees suddenly received bad reviews.

Topics

Digital standards | Consumer protection | Human rights principles

Unexpected differences

Scope of user responsibility in AI output validation

Speakers

– Don Gotterbarn
– Moira De Roche

Arguments

Developers bear primary responsibility for proper testing and ensuring systems work correctly before deployment

Users must review AI output carefully to ensure relevance and accuracy, applying human intelligence to artificial intelligence

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are advocating for professional standards, yet they have fundamentally different views on where responsibility lies. Gotterbarn strongly opposes shifting responsibility to users, while De Roche, who uses AI daily, accepts user responsibility for output validation as a practical necessity. This reflects a tension between idealistic professional standards and practical AI implementation realities.

Topics

Digital standards | Consumer protection

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on: (1) whether AI requires new ethical frameworks or can use existing ones, (2) the distribution of responsibility between developers and users for AI output validation, and (3) the primary causes of system failures like the Post Office scandal. Additionally, there are nuanced differences on implementation approaches for professional standards and international coordination.

Disagreement level

The disagreement level is moderate but significant for practical implementation. While speakers generally agree on the need for professional standards, accountability, and international cooperation, their different approaches to achieving these goals could lead to conflicting policies and practices. The disagreements reflect deeper tensions between idealistic professional standards and practical implementation realities, which has important implications for how AI governance frameworks will be developed and enforced globally.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that proper testing and implementation processes are the responsibility of developers and organizations, not end users. They reject shifting responsibility to customers or users for validating system accuracy.

Speakers

– Don Gotterbarn
– Margaret Havey

Arguments

Developers bear primary responsibility for proper testing and ensuring systems work correctly before deployment

Implementation failures stem from inadequate testing and poor organizational processes rather than technology itself

Topics

Digital standards | Consumer protection

Both speakers emphasize that AI governance and professional standards must involve all organizational levels, particularly executive leadership, rather than being limited to technical staff.

Speakers

– Moira De Roche
– Anthony Wong

Arguments

Comprehensive training frameworks are needed from CEO level down to all organizational levels

Professional standards must extend to CEOs and boards, not just IT professionals, with genuine accountability

Topics

Capacity development | Digital standards

Both speakers advocate for global coordination and continuous dialogue through international platforms to address AI challenges and prevent fragmentation of standards.

Speakers

– Stephen Ibaraki
– Damith Hettihewa

Arguments

A world foundation model could help address fragmentation by amalgamating open source repositories globally

Ongoing dialogue through platforms like WSIS and AI for Good is essential for continuous improvement

Topics

Digital standards | Capacity development

Key takeaways

AI ethics should be treated as contextual application of existing ethical principles rather than a separate discipline, with professional responsibility extending to all stakeholders including CEOs and boards

The quality of AI systems depends entirely on input data quality and proper implementation processes, with developers bearing primary responsibility for testing and validation

Professional standards must be globally coordinated while respecting cultural differences, with IFIP’s international code of ethics providing a foundation for common standards

AI must be integrated throughout organizational processes with comprehensive training from executive level down, rather than being isolated to specific teams

The UK Post Office scandal demonstrates the critical need for accountability and proper validation of computer evidence, showing how implementation failures can have devastating human consequences

Users must apply human intelligence to review AI outputs for relevance and accuracy, understanding that AI tools require responsible use and careful validation

Resolutions and action items

Moira De Roche committed to developing a framework for generative AI skills and training across organizational levels in the coming weeks and months

IFIP to explore ISO accreditation around software engineering and software programming to ensure adherence to standards

IFIP to act as a neutral facilitator and advocate for interoperability standards across borders through collaboration with IEEE, BCS, and other professional bodies

Continue ongoing dialogue through platforms like WSIS and AI for Good to keep guidelines and frameworks continuously improved as living documents

Develop a standard body of knowledge around generative AI aligned with professional standards

Unresolved issues

How to effectively balance innovation with professional responsibility when working with cutting-edge AI technology that evolves rapidly

How to ensure legal liability and enforcement mechanisms have sufficient ‘teeth’ to hold organizations and leadership accountable for AI system failures

How ICT professionals can effectively convince top management to implement proper testing, piloting, and responsible deployment practices

How to address fragmentation of AI standards across different cultural, regulatory, and regional contexts while maintaining global interoperability

How to ensure large organizations employ fully qualified IT professionals and maintain proper professional standards in AI implementation

Suggested compromises

Recognition that while cultural and regional differences exist in AI implementation (such as restrictions on religious content), common professional responsibilities like testing and harm minimization apply universally

Acknowledgment that both developer responsibility for proper testing and user responsibility for output validation are necessary, with clear delineation of roles

Acceptance that AI ethics requires both existing ethical principles and new considerations for emerging challenges like AI personas and employment impacts

I think that it’s basically a mistake to invent something called AI ethics. What happens is ethical decisions in general have to respond to contexts and situations… When you make that list and you start to make details, it fits a very narrow context. One of the wonderful things I love about computing is the context is always changing, and so you have to have a certain kind of flexibility.

Speaker

Don Gotterbarn

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenged the premise that AI requires separate ethical frameworks, arguing instead that existing ethical principles should adapt to new contexts. It introduced a contrarian perspective that questioned the entire foundation of ‘AI ethics’ as a distinct discipline.

Impact

This comment immediately sparked disagreement from Margaret Havey, creating the first major debate in the discussion. It shifted the conversation from practical AI implementation issues to fundamental philosophical questions about whether AI ethics is categorically different from traditional computing ethics. This tension between top-down compliance versus practitioner-driven ethical decision-making became a recurring theme throughout the discussion.

So most, I’d say the vast majority of people out there working with these products are not developers… And we have to be concerned about the multiple agents, the multiple types of AI that are in use and all the different models and all the data and regulations. So it becomes a different problem.

Speaker

Margaret Havey

Reason

This comment provided a crucial reality check by highlighting that most AI users are not developers, introducing the complexity of real-world implementation across diverse organizational contexts. It challenged the developer-centric view and emphasized the multifaceted nature of AI deployment.

Impact

This response directly countered Don’s developer-focused perspective and broadened the discussion to include end-users, organizational implementation, and regulatory compliance. It introduced the concept that AI ethics must address multiple stakeholder perspectives, not just those of developers, fundamentally expanding the scope of the conversation.

As a world, as a global cooperation, how do we come up that the world, when we use a certain AI, we would be able to agree on what we’ll be using, when in fact we have so many different world views. The African might feel certain parts of the world might feel discriminated, the other parts of the world might be discriminated because of our standards.

Speaker

Ian (Audience member)

Reason

This comment introduced the critical dimension of cultural relativism and global diversity in AI standards, challenging the assumption that universal standards are achievable or desirable. It highlighted the inherent bias in AI training data and the impossibility of creating culturally neutral AI systems.

Impact

This question fundamentally shifted the discussion from technical and organizational issues to global governance and cultural sensitivity. It prompted responses about international cooperation through IFIP and led to discussions about world foundation models and data commons, elevating the conversation to address systemic global challenges in AI standardization.

How can ICT professionals, even if they have been trained, highly competent, how can they persuade top management to do the right thing such as pilot the software adequately and pilot in stages?… how does an ICT professional convince CEO management, top level management, to do the right thing and to accept responsibility for their decisions?

Speaker

Liz Eastwood

Reason

This comment cut to the heart of professional responsibility and power dynamics within organizations. Using the Post Office scandal as a concrete example, it highlighted the gap between technical competence and organizational authority, addressing the fundamental challenge of how technical professionals can influence executive decision-making.

Impact

This question brought the discussion full circle to practical governance issues and accountability. It prompted responses about legal liability, board responsibility, and the need for ‘teeth’ in professional standards. The comment grounded the theoretical discussion in real-world consequences and shifted focus to implementation strategies and enforcement mechanisms.

It was a failure in my opinion, more of human relations than of technology. So the technology let them down, but it was the actions taken by people using the output of their technology… Just relying on the data was a failure in human resource management, not so much a failure of the system, but a failure of what came out of the system.

Speaker

Moira De Roche

Reason

This comment reframed the Post Office scandal from a technical failure to a human judgment failure, introducing the crucial distinction between system output and human interpretation/action. It challenged the tendency to blame technology while highlighting human accountability in decision-making processes.

Impact

This perspective shifted the discussion toward the human element in AI implementation and the importance of human oversight. It reinforced the theme that emerged throughout the discussion about the need for human intelligence to complement artificial intelligence, and emphasized that professional standards must address human judgment and organizational culture, not just technical competence.

Overall assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by creating productive tensions between different perspectives – developer-centric versus user-centric views, universal versus culturally-relative standards, technical versus human responsibility, and theoretical versus practical implementation challenges. The conversation evolved from a relatively straightforward discussion about AI professional standards into a nuanced exploration of global governance, cultural sensitivity, organizational power dynamics, and the complex interplay between human and artificial intelligence. The Post Office scandal served as a concrete case study that grounded abstract ethical discussions in real-world consequences, while the cultural diversity question elevated the conversation to address systemic global challenges. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a technical discussion into a comprehensive examination of the multifaceted challenges facing AI governance and professional responsibility in a globally connected world.

How do we ensure that those developing AI comply with the rules and follow professional standards?

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Explanation

This addresses the core challenge of enforcing professional standards and ethical compliance in AI development, particularly given the widespread misuse observed during political periods.

How do we embed generative AI in organizations so it becomes part of the process rather than something separate?

Speaker

Moira De Roche

Explanation

This is crucial for organizational integration and ensuring AI tools are used effectively and responsibly across all levels of an organization.

How should ICT professionals balance innovation with responsibility to standards and maintaining public trust when working with cutting-edge AI projects?

Speaker

Stephen Ibaraki (via Moira De Roche)

Explanation

This addresses the tension between rapid technological advancement and professional responsibility, which is critical as AI technology evolves quickly.

As a global cooperation, how do we come up with AI standards that would be acceptable across different world views and cultural contexts?

Speaker

Ian (audience member)

Explanation

This highlights the challenge of creating universal AI standards when different regions have varying cultural, religious, and ethical perspectives that influence AI training and deployment.

How can ICT professionals convince top management to do the right thing, such as piloting software adequately and accepting responsibility for their decisions?

Speaker

Liz Eastwood

Explanation

This addresses the critical issue of getting executive leadership to prioritize proper testing and implementation procedures, especially in light of the Post Office Horizon scandal.

What is the best way to ensure that large companies actually insist on employing fully qualified IT professionals?

Speaker

Liz Eastwood

Explanation

This focuses on the practical challenge of ensuring organizations hire competent professionals rather than cutting costs with unqualified personnel.

How do we make sure there are ‘teeth’ behind codes of ethics and professional standards?

Speaker

Liz Eastwood

Explanation

This addresses the enforcement challenge – how to ensure that ethical codes and professional standards have real consequences and are not just paper exercises.

What new attributes should be added to ethical standards for data scientists working with AI algorithms?

Speaker

Damith Hettihewa

Explanation

This recognizes that new AI professions may require additional ethical considerations beyond traditional IT ethics, particularly around data management and privacy.

How can IFIP develop a comprehensive framework for generative AI skills and training across organizational levels?

Speaker

Moira De Roche

Explanation

This addresses the need for structured training programs that cover everyone from CEOs to end users, ensuring proper understanding and use of generative AI tools.

How can IFIP advocate for interoperability standards that are compatible across borders and not fragmented?

Speaker

Damith Hettihewa

Explanation

This addresses the technical challenge of ensuring AI systems can work together globally while maintaining consistent ethical and professional standards.

Summary

This discussion focused on the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) project to establish a digital form of the protective emblems of the Geneva Conventions—the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal—for use in cyberspace during armed conflicts. The session featured Samit D’Cunha, a legal advisor at ICRC, and Mauro Vignati, a tech advisor, moderated by Joelle Rizk, a digital risks advisor.

The project emerged from growing concerns about the increasing dependence of medical and humanitarian operations on digital infrastructure, combined with the reality that cyber operations have become part of modern armed conflicts. Since physical protective emblems that have safeguarded humanitarian operations for over 160 years are not visible in cyberspace, there is a critical need for digital equivalents that can signal protection under international humanitarian law to cyber operators.

Key milestones include the 2023 publication of an expert feasibility report, adoption of Resolution 2 at the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent encouraging ICRC’s digital emblem work, and the Cyber Security Tech Accords’ Digital Emblem Pledge supporting the project. Most recently, the Internet Engineering Task Force established a working group to develop technical standards for digital emblems.

The digital emblem would function as a cryptographic certificate that marks protected digital assets, similar to how physical emblems identify protected persons and objects in traditional warfare. Addressing concerns about potential misuse or increased targeting, the experts explained that the emblem replicates the same protections and risks as physical emblems, with built-in safeguards including the ability to remove the emblem when exposure becomes risky and public monitoring of certificate issuance to detect misuse.

The project emphasizes multi-stakeholder collaboration, involving governments, tech companies, humanitarian organizations, and even engagement with hacker communities through initiatives like “The Eight Rules for Hackers.” Technical standardization is crucial for global interoperability, with the IETF providing the primary venue for developing internet standards. The initiative also addresses the digital divide by ensuring simple, accessible technology that can be implemented by countries with varying levels of technological sophistication.

Potential legal incorporation methods include amending existing protocols, creating new binding agreements, or through unilateral state declarations and special agreements between conflict parties. This groundbreaking project represents a critical adaptation of humanitarian law to the digital age, ensuring that life-saving medical and humanitarian operations remain protected in an increasingly cyber-dependent world.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Emblem Project Overview**: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is developing a digital version of the protective emblems (Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal) to extend their protective function from physical battlefields to cyberspace, allowing computer-to-computer recognition of protected humanitarian and medical assets.

– **Technical Implementation and Standards**: The project involves creating cryptographic certificates that serve as digital markers, with development happening through the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) working group. The emphasis is on using existing, simple technologies to ensure global accessibility and interoperability.

– **Risks and Mitigation Strategies**: Discussion of potential misuse of digital emblems (such as protecting military assets) and exposure risks for humanitarian organizations, with proposed solutions including removable emblems in dangerous situations and public certificate monitoring to detect unauthorized use.

– **Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Adoption**: The project has gained support from 196 states through international resolutions, 160+ technology companies through the Cyber Security Tech Accords, and involves ongoing outreach to hacker communities, governments, and humanitarian organizations to build common understanding of international humanitarian law in cyberspace.

– **Legal Integration Pathways**: Various options for incorporating the digital emblem into international humanitarian law, including amending existing protocols, creating new binding agreements, unilateral state declarations, or special agreements between conflict parties.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to present and explain the ICRC’s Digital Emblem Project, which seeks to translate the 160-year-old protective function of humanitarian emblems into the digital age. The goal is to create a technical solution that signals to cyber operators that certain digital assets are protected under international humanitarian law, thereby extending traditional battlefield protections to cyberspace operations.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently professional, collaborative, and optimistic tone throughout. The speakers demonstrated expertise while remaining accessible to a diverse audience. The tone was forward-looking and solution-oriented, with presenters acknowledging challenges while emphasizing progress and multi-stakeholder support. Questions from the audience were welcomed and addressed constructively, reinforcing the collaborative atmosphere. The overall sentiment was one of cautious optimism about the project’s potential impact on protecting humanitarian operations in an increasingly digital world.

Speakers

– **Joelle Rizk** – Digital risks advisor at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), session moderator

– **Mauro Vignati** – Tech advisor at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), technical lead on the Digital Emblem Project

– **Samit D’Cunha** – Legal advisor at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

– **Speaker** – Representative from the Global Cyber Security Forum (identified as Amin)

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members including:

– Preetam Malur from ITU

– Ambassador for Cyber and Digital of Luxembourg

– Ollie from Australia (works in humanitarian law)

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond those in the speakers names list.

# Digital Emblem Project: Extending Humanitarian Protection to Cyberspace

## Executive Summary

This discussion examined the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Digital Emblem Project, an initiative to establish digital versions of the protective emblems of the Geneva Conventions for use in cyberspace during armed conflicts. Moderated by Joelle Rizk, a digital risks advisor at ICRC, the session featured presentations from Samit D’Cunha, legal advisor at ICRC, and Mauro Vignati, tech advisor and technical lead on the Digital Emblem Project participating online. The discussion included active participation from representatives of the Global Cyber Security Forum, ITU, Luxembourg’s Ambassador for Cyber and Digital, and humanitarian law experts from Australia.

The project addresses a critical gap in modern warfare: while physical protective emblems have safeguarded humanitarian operations for over 160 years, these protections are not visible in cyberspace where medical and humanitarian operations increasingly depend on digital infrastructure. The initiative seeks to create digital markers that enable recognition of protected humanitarian and medical assets under international humanitarian law.

## Project Genesis and Development

The Digital Emblem Project emerged from the ICRC’s recognition that cyber operations have become integral to modern armed conflicts, while traditional protective mechanisms remain confined to physical spaces. Samit D’Cunha explained that the project began in 2020 following extensive consultations with states, the Red Cross movement, private sector entities, and cyber experts. The initiative was driven by the fundamental challenge that “the emblem is not visible in cyberspace,” creating a protection gap for increasingly digitalized humanitarian operations.

The project has achieved significant milestones since its inception. In 2023, the ICRC published an expert feasibility report that laid the technical and legal groundwork for digital emblems. This was followed by the adoption of Resolution 2 at the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which encouraged the ICRC’s digital emblem work with support from 196 states. The Cyber Security Tech Accords subsequently launched a Digital Emblem Pledge a few weeks later, garnering support from over 160 technology companies.

D’Cunha also noted that the African Union developed a common position on international humanitarian law application to information and communication technologies approximately two years prior to this discussion, demonstrating leadership in this area.

Most recently, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) established a working group called DIEM (Digital Emblems) to develop technical standards for digital emblems, with work beginning at IETF 123 in Madrid.

## Technical Implementation Approach

Mauro Vignati provided insights into the technical approach of the digital emblem system. The concept involves creating certificates that serve as digital markers, similar to how physical emblems identify protected persons and objects in traditional warfare. These would be embedded in digital infrastructure to signal protection under international humanitarian law.

Vignati emphasized that the goal is to “develop simple technology using already standardized components to ensure accessibility for all states regardless of technological sophistication.” The certificates would be publicly visible, allowing organizations to monitor for unauthorized use, and would be removable when exposure might create security risks.

The Internet Engineering Task Force serves as the primary venue for developing these technical standards. Vignati noted that the IETF is “the most recognized international entity producing internet standards that are implemented worldwide.” The DIEM working group allows participation from governments, technology companies, civil society organizations, and technical experts.

D’Cunha highlighted that incorporating technical standards into international humanitarian law has historical precedent, dating back to the 1863 standardization of the Red Cross emblem itself, and includes the 1970s incorporation of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) standards into Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions.

## Risk Management and Security Considerations

The discussion addressed concerns about potential risks associated with digital emblems, including misuse and targeting of humanitarian assets. Vignati acknowledged that “misuse is possible in digital space just as in physical space,” but emphasized that the digital emblem incorporates safeguards to address these challenges.

Key protection mechanisms include the ability to remove digital emblems when exposure might create security risks, replicating the flexibility of physical emblems. The system also incorporates public monitoring capabilities through publicly visible certificates, allowing organizations to identify unauthorized use.

Addressing concerns about increased targeting, Vignati argued that “protected entities are already identifiable through various means, so the digital emblem doesn’t necessarily increase targeting risks.” He explained that hospitals and humanitarian facilities can already be identified through multiple digital footprints.

## Legal Framework and Compliance

The legal foundation for digital emblems rests on existing international humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. D’Cunha emphasized that the digital emblem “serves as a pragmatic technical tool to support compliance by enabling cyber operators to identify protected infrastructure” rather than creating new legal obligations.

D’Cunha mentioned that there are different possible means for legal incorporation, though he did not elaborate extensively on specific mechanisms. He addressed skepticism about emblem effectiveness by noting that “the distinctive emblems remain among the most respected symbols globally,” and provided personal testimony that “a lot of the work that’s done by the medical services in situations of armed conflict is only possible because of the trust in the emblem.”

## Multi-Stakeholder Engagement

The project has engaged diverse actors in humanitarian law compliance. D’Cunha described the ICRC’s publication of “Eight Rules for Hackers,” which received “mixed but ultimately positive feedback from hacker groups.” This represents engagement with non-traditional actors in cyber operations.

Vignati reported that direct dialogue with hacktivist groups operating in conflict zones has yielded positive feedback regarding potential respect for digital emblems. This engagement recognizes that international humanitarian law applies to all persons participating in hostilities.

The Global Cyber Security Forum representative (Amin) proposed hosting an impact network to bring together various stakeholders for digital emblem implementation, including national organizations, cybersecurity companies, standardization bodies, governments, and infrastructure owners.

## Addressing the Digital Divide

An audience member from Australia raised concerns about countries and services in developing countries being less able to access ICT services where the digital emblem would be most needed, particularly during humanitarian crises.

D’Cunha responded by highlighting capacity building initiatives, noting that relevant resolutions recognize the importance of state-led capacity building for access to humanitarian and medical digital infrastructure. He pointed to the African Union’s leadership in developing common positions despite technological constraints.

The technical approach addresses these concerns through emphasis on simplicity and existing standards. The ITU representative (Preetam Malur) offered collaboration on standardization efforts, noting their network infrastructure standards expertise and global membership of 194 states plus 1,000 private sector entities.

## Artificial Intelligence Considerations

When asked about AI, Vignati explained that AI is increasingly used in cyber offensive and defensive operations, requiring digital emblems to be recognizable by autonomous systems. He noted that “malware and offensive code operating without human intervention must be programmed” to look for and respect digital emblems.

Vignati acknowledged that “technology development often outpaces regulation, necessitating thorough testing before presenting solutions to state actors.”

## Stakeholder Collaboration and Support

The discussion revealed strong support among participants for multi-stakeholder collaboration. All speakers recognized that governments, international organizations, private sector entities, civil society, and technical communities must work together for successful implementation.

Technical standardization emerged as a key area of agreement, with participants recognizing that standards are fundamental for ensuring the digital emblem works consistently across different systems and jurisdictions globally.

The Luxembourg representative mentioned co-chairing a working group with Mexico and Switzerland, indicating ongoing diplomatic engagement on these issues.

## Next Steps and Future Directions

Key immediate steps include the commencement of technical development work at IETF 123 in Madrid and continued multi-stakeholder consultations. The Global Cyber Security Forum’s proposal to host an impact network and the ITU’s offer of collaboration on standardization efforts provide concrete opportunities for advancing the project.

The project benefits from existing support from 196 states through the International Conference resolution and over 160 technology companies through the Tech Accords pledge, creating a foundation for implementation.

## Conclusion

The Digital Emblem Project represents an important adaptation of humanitarian law to the digital age, ensuring that medical and humanitarian operations remain protected in an increasingly cyber-dependent world. The discussion demonstrated stakeholder support, clear technical pathways through the IETF, and recognition of the need to address capacity building and digital divide issues.

The project’s innovative engagement with diverse cyber actors, including hacker communities, provides a model for expanding humanitarian law compliance beyond traditional state-centric approaches. Success will require continued multi-stakeholder collaboration, robust technical standardization, and sustained attention to ensuring developing countries can participate in digital emblem implementation.

By translating the protective function of humanitarian emblems into cyberspace, the project aims to preserve humanitarian principles in an evolving technological landscape while maintaining the fundamental distinction between civilian and military targets that lies at the heart of international humanitarian law.

Joelle Rizk: in here is Mauro, but we don’t see, I see him here, but not up there. Should I wait? For tech, can we please have Mauro on the big screen for the audience? All right, let’s go. Ladies and gentlemen and excellencies, thank you for being here with us today. The session right now is about a project of the International Committee of the Red Cross to establish a digital form of the protective emblems of the Geneva Conventions, the Red Cross, Crescent and Crystal in the cyber domain. And today, you’ll be joined with our colleagues, Samit Dikmina, who’s a legal advisor at the International Committee of the Red Cross. And online, we have Mauro Vignanzi, who’s a tech advisor also at the International Committee of the Red Cross. And I’ll be with you moderating the session. My name is Romel, and I’m a digital risks advisor also at the Red Cross. So ladies and gentlemen, over 160 years ago, states established a distinctive emblem to identify during armed conflict, medical and humanitarian operations that benefit from specific protections under international humanitarian law. The use of these distinctive emblems, like I said, the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal, as you see on the screen, the use of these emblem indicates to adversaries in armed conflict that a certain person or an object or an entity are protected. And by that, we mean that their function is otherwise not a legitimate military target. These are universally endorsed and accepted symbols. They have global recognitions by states and also even non-state actors, and therefore they have that protective function during armed conflict. Today, advances in ICTs and other technologies are rapidly changing and giving rise to new methods and shifts in trends during armed conflict and the conduct of warfare and the behaviors of parties involved in armed conflict. Amongst others, we see increasing use of cyber attack on critical infrastructure. We also observe how harmful information activities may also be targeting humanitarian organizations and others. Back when the emblems were endorsed or created, they became a marker of protected persons and entity. However, today the type, back then also, the type of actors involved, the weapon delivery systems, the mechanisms were quite different. Today with digital technologies, we see an introduction of new or different type of actors in the ecosystem of armed conflict, such as hackers, cyber groups. Some may be motivated by criminality, others by ideology, others maybe just proxies to states. Either way, the digital ecosystem that is surrounding armed conflict and violence today becomes a space through which harmful and malicious activities using ICTs are conducted in ways that may also cause harm to civilians and to people. So, an attack on humanitarian organizations’ data systems, for example, may actually eventually lead to disappearances of people. A cyber attack on a critical infrastructure, especially in terms of conflict or crisis, may mean that the functioning of essential services of services essential to the well-being and the survival of the population may be disrupted. And as you imagine, in situations of armed conflict, we may be talking about life and death situations. So today we ask in this session and with our colleagues, with our experts, how can this mark, this protective mark, this emblem, that signals protection under IHL be extended to digital infrastructure? How can it also be extended to the cyber domain? In the same way, how can states ensure that the protection of data, of medical services and humanitarian operations is respected? How can states and parties to armed conflict fulfill their obligation to respect and protect these services? Cyber activities by states or other that may lead to damaging, deleting, encrypting, or otherwise interfering with such data may become an IHL violation. So how can that be addressed through the use of this emblem? Today in a world that is as interconnected and reliant on digital tools as we use today and powered by digital infrastructure, it is imperative to consider that the use and the adaptation of protective emblems in ways that are usable and can deliver on their purpose, not only in the physical context, but also in the context of cyber operations during armed conflict. For all of these reasons, for the past few years, the ICRC has worked with tech experts, I imagine some of them in the room today, with governments, with humanitarian organizations and the private sector to identify avenues to digitalize this emblem. As a digital marker of protection, meaning to find a way to signal through cyber means, computer to computer, the same protection message that the Red Cross emblem sends on the battlefield to adversaries or between adversaries. So now on that, I turn back to. who are experts and to hear from them about the Digital Red Cross Emblem project. So, Samit, if I may begin with you. Can you first tell us a bit more about the project? Why and how did this project get started and what has been achieved so far?

Samit D’Cunha: Yeah, of course, thank you so much. Thank you so much, Joelle. So maybe I’ll start first by thanking the ITU and really all of the organizers of WSIS Plus 20 for giving us the space this year to talk about this project. It’s a project that I think from humble beginnings has really grown into a force for good with multi-stakeholder buy-in and involvement. So the Digital Emblem project is really rooted in very concrete operational concerns. First of all, the increasing dependence of the medical services and humanitarian operations on digital infrastructure, very much mirroring, of course, the digitalization of our societies and the dependence also of civilian populations on digital infrastructure. And then second is just simply the growing reality that cyber operations have become part of armed conflicts, part of the landscape of armed conflict. So the project began for the ICRC in 2020. It was really sort of prompted by this growing concern and kind of the recognition that the legal protections under international humanitarian law, specifically those that are afforded to the medical services and humanitarian operations, are not visible in cyberspace. And this was, with that landscape that I just portrayed, that this was becoming increasingly untenable. You know, the specific protections of the medical services and the humanitarian operations of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement are some of the oldest rules of international humanitarian law. I mean, if you think about the basis for the signing of the very first Geneva Convention, a few minutes drive from here in the town hall of Geneva, in 1864, the logic was to create these specific protections. for the personnel, the objects, and the infrastructure that provides support to victims of armed conflict, to the wounded, to the sick, to civilians that are affected by conflict. And also to integrate then this distinctive emblem, the Red Cross, which was eventually joined by the sister emblems, the Red Crescent and Red Crystal, to identify then that specific protection that was created in the law. So that’s really where it all starts, this desire of states to protect those persons, those objects, and that infrastructure in situations of armed conflict. But today, with the reality of cyber operations being part of armed conflict, and the reality that of course there’s a dependence on digital infrastructure, there is yet an equivalent signal in cyberspace for that legal protection. So since 2020, we’ve really taken a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach to the Digital Emblem Project, which ultimately, and my colleague Mauro, who’s the technical lead on the project, will do a much better job explaining sort of the technical nuances of what a digital emblem is, but ultimately, it’s a marker that signals to cyber operators that a given digital asset is protected under international humanitarian law. So Joelle, you asked about some of the milestones. I mean, one key milestone was in 2023, the publication of the expert report on the feasibility, the use, and the means of integrating into international humanitarian law a digital emblem. And that report, of course, it’s a report of an expert meeting, but really, it was three years in the making, because it came from consultations that we did with states, more broadly with the Red Cross and Red Crescent movements. When I refer to the movement, I’m referring, of course, to the International Federation of the Red Cross, one component of the movement, as well as the 191 national societies of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. So consultations with the movement, consultations with the private sector, and consultations more broadly with cyber experts on questions of feasibility, of use, of what would a digital emblem look like if we could have one. And that really culminated. with that report, which suggested that yes, this is something that stakeholders are interested in, yes, this is something that the international community recognizes as important, and really since the publication of that report, we’ve really moved the project forward in many different as sort of the different pillars of law, diplomacy, and of course, the technical development. And that sort of then also reflects some of the other milestones that I’ll talk about. So the next milestone, and really a key one, was at the last international conference of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, so this is a conference that takes place every four years, and at the 34th conference, and this is, you know, a conference that brings together all 196 states party to the Geneva Conventions, as well as all of the different components of the movement that I just mentioned, a resolution was adopted, Resolution 2, on protecting civilians and other protected persons and objects from the potential harms of ICT activities in armed conflict, the resolution is colloquially known as the ICT resolution, that resolution was adopted at the international conference, and encouraged in operative paragraph 12, encouraged work by the ICRC on the digital emblem. So this was of course a monumental moment for the project, because it was the first time you had sort of this interstate buy-in and the entire movement coming together and supporting the work on the digital emblem. A few weeks after the adoption of the resolution, the Cyber Security Tech Accords adopted something called the Digital Emblem Pledge, so for those of you that don’t know, the Cyber Security Tech Accords is a group of something like 160 technology companies that together represent over a billion clients globally, and the Tech Accords adopted the Digital Emblem Pledge, also in a way mirroring the resolution, supporting, you know, continued work on the digital emblem, and pledging support for the digital emblem project. So, you know, together, you know, these are incredibly significant milestones, I mean, if we combine the ICT… the ICT resolution with the pledge on the digital emblem, we see that we really have a broad group of stakeholders recognizing the importance, first of all, of the applicability of international humanitarian law to the use of ICTs in armed conflict, but also the importance of developing tools that make sure that IHL stays relevant in the 21st century. The final milestone I’ll talk about is sort of on the technical development. So about a year and a half ago, and this will be, of course, a big part of our conversation today, we brought the digital emblem project to the Internet Engineering Task Force. And this was the result, this is one of the fruits, if you will, of our discussions with the private sector that very much encouraged bringing the digital emblem to the IETF, the Internet Engineering Task Force, where there have been now discussions for over a year on the project. And we’re very grateful that a few weeks ago, a charter was adopted at the IETF for the establishment of a working group. The working group, the DIEM, or D-I-E-M Working Group, will begin work actually in a couple of weeks at IETF 123 in Madrid. And so here is one of the sort of avenues, one of the work streams where we’ll really have technical development of internet standards for the digital emblem, which of course doesn’t foreclose other avenues for technical development, for discussion on standards, but is one, I think, important avenue where we’ll have that discussion. Of course, now at the IETF, the working group is on digital emblems more broadly. So of course, today we’re talking about the Red Cross Crescent and Crystal. There are other IHL emblems, for example, the Blue Shield emblem of the 1954 Hague Convention. UNESCO has also joined the discussions at the IETF, as well as the Blue Shield International, which sort of brings together many organizations working on the Blue Shield, have also joined these technical discussions. And then also more broadly, the IETF is looking at what could this concept of digital emblem mean in international law more broadly. even outside of international law. So, it’s a really, I think, interesting and flexible discussion where we’ll really be able to develop sort of meaningful technical standards for the project.

Joelle Rizk: Thank you so much. If I may also continue on this positive note and all the achievements that have been accomplished so far, I wanna challenge you a little bit. Today, if we look at international headlines, it is not the protections that you indicated that dominate the headlines. It’s rather potentially violations of the law. So, if I may challenge, how, on what basis do we believe that the use of a protective emblem also in the cyberspace, a digital emblem, can also be protective?

Samit D’Cunha: Thanks, Joelle. That’s a really fair and, I think, necessary question. Maybe I’ll actually answer this question by challenging you back. This is how discussions go internally at ICRC all the time, actually. You’re absolutely right, of course. The fact that there have been cases of misuse of the emblem or, in fact, targeting of infrastructure that bear the physical emblem is often in the news. And maybe I’ll challenge this by saying that’s actually a good thing, right? The fact that violations of international humanitarian law make the news is sort of part of how international humanitarian law is designed. I mean, it’s important to see that happening. It’s important that different stakeholders, communities, states, civilian populations are aware that these violations happen and then are able in their different ways and different capacities to take action. But it’s really important here that we don’t lose sight of the forest for the trees because the reality is when IHL is respected and when the emblem is respected, which I dare say is most of the time, that doesn’t make it in the news. And that’s also a good thing. We don’t wanna be overwhelmed with cases of, well, the emblem was respected here and here and here and it led to all of these positive results. Of course, that’s not going to be in the news and it shouldn’t be in the news. We need to focus on when things go wrong and how to mitigate that. But the fact is, and this is not at all hyperbole, the distinctive emblems remain one of the most respected symbols globally and we really cannot lose sight of that in this discussion. And its legal and moral weight has been incredibly significant in the last 160 years. And so of course we will lose sight of that if we only think of the violations, but that’s simply not the reality. A lot of the work that’s done by the medical services in situations of armed conflict is only possible because of the trust in the emblem, because of the trust that the medical services have in the emblem, because of the trust that parties to conflict have that when the emblem is born, it’s born by entities that in fact have this specific protection under international humanitarian law. That’s the reason they’re able to undertake that work. A lot of us at ICRC have also had past lives in operational situations of conflict. I personally can say that without the emblem a lot of the work that I did would be completely impossible because you’re working in situations of armed conflict and you need to believe that if you’re bearing the emblem the emblem will be respected. And that really is the case a lot of the time. And I think your question actually ties more broadly to this broader question of compliance with international humanitarian law. And I think there’s a lot that we can be discouraged about in recent history. Let’s say in the last few years. It’s also important to remember that accountability is not the only tool of compliance. Compliance is multifaceted. There’s many different aspects of compliance and I dare say when IHL is violated and we look to accountability as a tool for compliance, it’s not the perfect tool because it means a violation has already taken place. But there’s many other tools for compliance. There’s prevention strategies that are in place. There’s trainings to the armed forces and to parties to armed conflict. The ICRC has a bilateral confidential dialogue with parties to armed conflict, what we call our protection dialogue, which is a key tool. of compliance. It’s not a public tool, it’s not always recorded when a party respected international humanitarian law because of a dialogue, because of protection, but those are also really really important tools so we have to remember that as well. It is frustrating when IHL is violated, it is frustrating when accountability doesn’t work the way it needs to work, but compliance is much broader than that and if we look simply at the history of the emblem and really broadly the history of international humanitarian law, I mean it has been an incredible tool to protect victims of armed conflict over the last 160 years. Maybe one last thing I’ll say is that you know cyberspace of course poses new challenges and one question Mauro and I and all you know we always get is this question of what about accountability in cyberspace. I mean this is another demand, you know a whole like a exponentially you know more difficult question and that’s true and the digital emblem is not going to be a panacea for that accountability discussion that takes place in Geneva, in New York and elsewhere, but again it’s a tool for that. It’s not just symbolic, I mean it’s a pragmatic technical tool that’s designed to support compliance like some of the other tools that I’ve just mentioned and it creates the possibility of restraint because we’ve been directly told by cyber operators that sometimes it is impossible or very difficult to identify certain digital infrastructure as you know specifically protected. So it is a tool in that broader toolbox of compliance to encourage respect for international humanitarian law. Thank

Joelle Rizk: you Samit. You make my next question to Mauro a bit difficult. Mauro if I may bring you in on the conversation now, speaking of the tools and in the beginning of its answer Samit mentioned potential misuse. I want to go to you now with a question about risks involved in using the digital emblem. For example digitally marking or identifying a medical or humanitarian entity, could that also expose them or could for example a false use or misuse of the digital emblem be marked? For example, when falsely marking a military as otherwise unprotected infrastructure. How are we looking at mitigating such risks and what other risks should we be aware of? Thank you very much, Joelle. And we also thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak today and also welcoming all our guests and listening to our panelists.

Samit D’Cunha: So, Ed, this is a very interesting question as we have received this remarkable question through our times from sort of stakeholders and from state, from governments, from private and non-companies, from civil society. The goal of the project is to translate one-to-one to quote the physical emblem into the digital space. We’re using the same concept, the same rules that apply in the physical space in the digital one. So, as the protected entities in the physical space, they show the emblem, right? And we need to have exactly the same situation in the digital one. So the main goal is to show and to present the emblem to potential threat actors that if they behave responsibly, they will avoid, they will refrain from attacking those assets. So, that said, we have seen groups, criminal groups, like ransomware groups, for instance, that are targeting specifically hospitals. This means that even without a digital emblem, it’s already possible to identify a specially protected asset, like the service of hospitals through different ways, like using specific search engines or other methodology to identify those assets. So, with or without a digital emblem, it’s already now possible to identify those possible potential. time. So, we don’t think that the emblem will increase the impact on these, on this asset. But again, we don’t have statistical meaning to say this. We tend to think that it’s, we are replicating exactly the same situation as the physical one. But to, to avoid that the emblem could become a risk for, a risk for those assets, one of the function, fundamental function of the emblem is to be removed in situation where exposing the emblem could become a risky factor. And so, this means that once the emblem is created, the digital emblem is created,

Mauro Vignati: every, every asset that is using the emblem can remove or use the emblem depending from the situation that they believe to be in. So, this is the aspect about presenting the emblem. On the misuse, there could be potentially misuse of the emblem. What we try to do is with the cryptographic certificates, because the emblem is represented by cryptographic certificates, and those cryptographic certificates will be published and will be publicly seen. So, every new certificate that will be published will be visible in a bucket of cryptographic certificates. This means that every organization can monitor if new certificates will be published with their private key, meaning that a possible breach happened at the organization, and someone is producing a certificate on their name. So, this is something that we are willing to implement. And then, state and non-state actors could logically also use the digital emblem to protect digital military assets. This is also happening in the physical space, where the emblem is misused to protect a military asset. And so, this is also possible, could be possible also in the digital space, but it’s not because we are talking about a digital project that magically all the problems of the physical emblem will be solved with the digital digital space. So this is something that happened, but we also know that the misuse can be addressed. And then the state must respond to these misuse. So if there’s going to be misuse in the digital space, because someone’s producing certificates that are protecting meat-heavy assets, by announcing and seeing how these digital certificates are used, that those kind of misuse can be addressed.

Joelle Rizk: Thanks a lot, Mauro. Another question for you. You mentioned that we’re trying to translate from the physical to the digital the same realities and uses and preventions. Can you walk us through the importance of developing technical standards for the digital emblem to that end? And since we’re also speaking of misuses, has there been any precedence in IHL with regards to incorporating technical standards so they are respected and adopted? Technical standards are key to speak the same language, so to say, right? In many fields, standards are paramount to

Mauro Vignati: harmonize a globalized exchange. So without standards, we could not have exchange at different levels, not just the technological one, but at different activities of our societies. So specifically in our domain, the internet standards are the ones that give us the possibility to build the applications that create a common capability to communicate. So I’m thinking about web surfing, to the use of applications, all those technologies are standardized. So without a standardization, we would have a very fragmented world with all the challenges that are bind to this kind of fragmentation. So specifically in the domain of digital technologies, we can imagine if every country has a different standard, we would have a problem in the interoperability of those. Why is it very important now to be at the Internet Engineering Task Force? We have a dedicated working group. Why the Internet Engineering Task Force, the IETF? It’s because it’s the international entity that is producing the majority of the Internet standards. So it’s the most recognized and most implemented standards worldwide coming from the IETF. And that’s why we started this working project. And the working project and the working group means that all the parties, and they can be a government, can be tech companies, can be the society at all, can participate in the discussion on how to standardize technology. So this is why it’s very fundamental for this kind of standardization.

Joelle Rizk: Thank you. Before I go back to Mauro for one last question, do you want to compliment on the IHL precedents? I would love to. So your question touched on whether there’s precedents for this, for potentially incorporating technical standards into international humanitarian law, and the answer is definitely there’s precedents.

Samit D’Cunha: So I’ll talk about a historical one and maybe a more recent one. So I mentioned already the 1864, the very first Geneva Convention, the 1864 Geneva Convention that was signed a few minutes from here, Jive. A year before the signing of the 1864 Geneva Convention, there was in a way what was the first international conference of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. Obviously it wasn’t called that in 1863. It’s not even really formally recognized as the first conference if we count the last one as the 34th conference. But at least spiritually it was sort of the first conference in 1863, and they had a role of finding some kind of standardized way of identifying the medical services and what would eventually become the movement of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. And it was actually at that 1863 conference. that there was a resolution that adopted the Red Cross. Like I said, later came the Red Crescent and the Red Crystal. It was at that 1863 conference where that Red Cross was adopted. Why? Because before that, the medical services used some way to distinguish themselves, but it was different. Every state had a different way of identifying themselves. So some states, for example, used the rod of Asclepius, right, so the medical, you know, the rod with the serpent. They used that for their medical services. Others used simply, you know, a white armlet. There were many different ways of identifying the medical services, and it wasn’t standardized. What was determined in 1863 was that as sort of a complement to the fact that this was being adopted in Switzerland, so there was a few other reasons, what was adopted was the inverse of the Swiss flag. So the Swiss flag being a white cross on a red background. The emblem that was adopted was a red cross on a white background. And that became a standard that was then incorporated one year later into that very first Geneva Convention. So if you think about it, that kind of technical standardization being incorporated into law, which granted it’s not the same level of technical standardization, you know, the history of that is as old as international humanitarian law itself. But a more recent example comes in the 1970s where technologies were changing and the means of certain technologies to identify yourself were also changing. And basically when the first additional protocol was adopted, the additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions, there were three protocols, two of them were adopted in 1977. When the first protocol was adopted, something was created called a distinctive signal. So the distinctive signal is a certain light and radio signals to identify, for example, medical aircraft as well as medical ships. And in the annex of additional protocol one, you have the standards of ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization. I think it’s document 1951, that’s directly incorporated in article seven of the technical annex, so annex one of additional protocol one. In article eight, so the very next article of that annex, you have radio regulations actually of the ITU that are directly incorporated into article eight of the annex and therefore directly incorporated into international humanitarian law. So we absolutely have precedence for this and that discussion of how do we, once standards are developed, how do we incorporate them into international humanitarian law, well, that’s going to be a conversation that we will have with the movement, with states and with other stakeholders to determine the best way of doing that.

Joelle Rizk: Thank you, Sami. Mauro, last question for you. Hearing from Sami, moving from colors and flags to crypto certificates, we are right now also alongside the AI for Good Summit and I feel like it’s an important question to ask. How, as we understand the digital emblem as a protective emblem, how do you think it will also interact or how will the AI interact with such a digital emblem? We can’t hear you. Sorry. Excuse me, but I was not able to hear you. So thank you for the question, do you want to answer? What we observe is that AI is more and more equipped in capabilities in armed conflict,

Mauro Vignati: so being the cyber domain, but also most generally in the more broad digital domain. So we see the first use of AI in cyber offensive operations. We see AI implemented in cyber defensive capabilities, but also many other fields like decision support systems or drones are now equipped with AI too. And this is why we need a digital emblem. also by cyber-offensive tools that have no human being operating them. So, and here I’m thinking about tools that are able to self-replicate from computer to computer, from network to network, that are able to take their own decision on how to spread the network and how to operate against a target. So this means that malware, or we call them offensive or malicious code that operates without human intervention must be equipped with the capability to identify the IDs independently from the operating source. From one perspective, operators are very fundamentally identified as cryptographic certificates. From the other, we need a possibility, a technological possibility where the malware must be coded in a way that they look for the emblem and understanding if the emblem is present, the attack must be avoided. And this is something that we would like to see in the implementation in the coming month through the standardization. Thank you, Mauro. That brings to mind a lot more questions,

Joelle Rizk: but since we have 20 minutes left, I’d like to move right now and give the floor to the room and to the audience online. I am, however, told that we have colleagues online that would like to make a statement or ask a question. I’m not sure if we can bring them on. I believe it’s a question from the Global Cybersecurity Forum. Colleagues online? Yep, okay. All right, well, until that is addressed, then we move to the audience in the room. If there are any questions, I. I see a hand over here, do you have a microphone? Sit down? Yeah, thanks. My name is Preetam Malur and I’m from the ITU. It’s just an observation I wanted to make. The ITU constitution highlights the importance of protection of telecommunication infrastructure.

Audience: Also, the right of access to means of communication. It’s spread throughout the constitution convention. But there are very specific areas including the preamble, which talks about peaceful means and all that. So, this topic is very important to us. And we are here at the business forum, look at the business outcome documents. It’s all about delivering citizen services, use of ICTs and emergency response and disaster risk reduction. There are so many of these examples. So, what you’re doing is extremely valuable for us. Regarding the standardization aspect, I’m sure you know ITU is a standards body also. We have the AI for Good Happening in the same venue. AI standards is something we work on. But this is something we are doing new. We have a long history in network infrastructure standards. So, while you’re targeting the internet standards, there might be other layers that you might also want to look at. And ITU has 194 member states, but also more than 1,000 private sector entities. So, it will be interesting to explore what other layers this could go into network standards. And that’s a conversation. we are happy to initiate with you. Probably, while I know that when ICRC developed this, you had multi-stakeholder consultations, but I think to take it forward, you probably need a lot more consultations. So we’d be happy to be part of that also. So again, overall great work, happy to engage.

Joelle Rizk: Thank you. I will take maybe one or two more comments and questions, please. If you may, please identify yourself. Thank you very much. I’m the Ambassador for Cyber and Digital of Luxembourg, and we are very happy and proud to host

Audience: the ICRC’s Cyber Delegation in Luxembourg, and we’re also happy to be able to help you together with Mexico and Switzerland to co-chair the working group on impact of ICTs on international security that was launched by the ICRC President. This is a very helpful session, I think, and you’ve come to the right place because WSIS is all about multi-stakeholderism, and you’ve mentioned the work that’s being done with the technical community at the IETF, and we have an opening with ITU, which I think is excellent as well. You’ve also mentioned the Cyber Tech Accord people. I was wondering if there were also openings or things that you can be doing or that you can talk about, about reaching out to the broader tech community about the hackers and about others and the cultural work that can be done. I mean, international humanitarian law over decades and generations has been inculcated into militaries that they realize that you don’t shoot at the Red Crescent or the Red Cross or the Red Crystal, but what more can we do to reach out to activists and to others? Is there something that states can help with or that other community members of WSIS

Joelle Rizk: can be helpful with? Thank you. Thank you very much for this question. Almost like drawing a roadmap for the steps going. going forward on the project. I will take one last question before I move back to the experts.

Audience: Yes, please. Hi, I’m Ollie, I work in humanitarian law and I’m from Australia. My question is surrounding the digital gap we’re seeing between developed and developing countries. Obviously, we see particularly in terms of humanitarian crises, lots of countries and services in these more developing countries are less able to access ICT services where the digital emblem would be most needed. So I wanted to know what strategies Red Cross is using to try and overcome this digital gap. Thank you.

Joelle Rizk: Thank you. Samit and Mauro, not easy questions, inspiring as well. Samit, may I start with you? Sure, yeah, definitely. So thank you for all of those questions and comments. Preetam, thank you so much for the support. We’ll definitely be in touch.

Samit D’Cunha: We’re very happy to work with the ITU and sort of build our multi-stakeholder process. That would be wonderful. So in terms of reaching out to sort of, kind of non-traditional, we’ll say, interlocutors for the International Committee of the Red Cross, I mean, it’s really important and it’s definitely something we’re doing. Of course, we focus now on the digital emblem project. The reality is that our work on cyber and new technologies more broadly is multifaceted and there’s multiple different aspects to that. Yeah, one of them is indeed reaching out to hacktivist communities, to hacker groups, to certain groups that might be also associated with parties to conflict and working in the cyber domain. Perhaps you’re familiar, but last year, the ICRC published something called The Eight Rules for Hackers. Actually, I’ll probably let Mauro talk a little bit more about that because he was one of the authors of The Eight Rules. So I’m sure he’ll build on that, but that was an important part of our work. It ended up getting quite a bit of traction. It was published by the BBC and by some other big organizations. The interesting thing about The Eight Rules for Hackers and then The Four Recommendations for States is that they’re actually just restatements of existing rules. So one thing that people might not be familiar with is that IHL… applies of course to parties to conflicts, it also applies to any person who’s participating in hostilities. So the conduct hostilities rules apply to everyone. And of course, if you’re participating in hostilities as a individual activist that’s not affiliated with a party to a conflict, but in the context of an armed conflict, then of course the conduct hostilities rules of IHL apply to you. And it is a violation of international humanitarian law to target medical infrastructure or to target humanitarian infrastructure or even civilian infrastructure. I mean, that is absolutely clear. And we did actually publicly get, there was feedback from certain groups, hacker groups on the eight rules. There were some groups that supported the rules. There were some groups that said, this is not feasible. What I found really interesting was that there were a few groups that initially said, these rules are totally not feasible. And a few days later, actually then republished a position and said, we will abide by all of these rules. And for me, that’s really key. Like the key thing for the ICRC in this new domain is building common understandings. We often talk about those common understandings with states. Certainly you’re very familiar that the global initiative was launched this year on galvanizing respect for international humanitarian law by the ICRC in six states. And the ICT work stream is one of the, a key work stream on building common understandings. Those common understandings are for states and they’re also for private technology companies. And therefore really anyone that has some role to play in armed conflict where IHL touches upon that. So yeah, that’s a really important part of our work. And then bringing in the digital emblem as an additional tool to encourage compliance is of course very important. And then on the final point, and then Mauro, I’ll pass to you. You’re absolutely right about the digital divide. I mentioned the international conference resolution that was adopted by consensus in October last year. As pen holders of that resolution, it was so essential for us to make sure that that was reflected in the resolution. It was so important for us to reflect the fact that look, we’re talking about ICT. We’re talking about rules, you know, IHL rules that apply to ICTs. We also have to talk about who’s disproportionately affected by this, and also, you know, where there are these massive gaps in terms of access to ICTs, because the resolution talks about all of these benefits in the humanitarian sector for victims of armed conflict, and we also have to talk about where those benefits don’t reach. And so, actually, the very first preambulatory paragraph of the ICT resolution recognizes that gap. Well, it recognizes the importance of ICTs for digitalizing societies, it recognizes the importance of ICTs, and then it also recognizes that there is this gap. That’s the first preambulatory paragraph, and then in Operative Paragraph 12, which is the paragraph on the digital emblem, it recognizes that states need to play a role in capacity building. It’s absolutely essential. They need to play a role for capacity building for other states, you know, in terms of access to humanitarian and medical digital infrastructure, and the ability to identify that infrastructure with the digital emblem, and they also need to play a role with their respective national societies in making sure that their national societies are also able to build their capacities and ensure, you know, continuation of the provision of assistance to victims of armed conflict in a digitalized age. That’s absolutely important. The last thing I’ll mention, though, you know, when we talk about this digital divide, I think it’s important to mention who are some of the leaders, actually, in developing these rules. Today, there are states that are developing national positions on how international humanitarian law applies to the use of ICTs, and I would be absolutely remiss if I didn’t mention that the first regional group to develop a common position on, one, the fact that IHL applies to the use of ICTs, and second, how it applies, and the fact that medical and humanitarian infrastructure must absolutely be protected, is actually the African Union. So 55 states together adopted the common African position last February, sorry, not last February, like two Februaries ago. adopted the common African position that recognized that IHL applies, that recognized that medical infrastructure has to be protected, that recognized that humanitarian infrastructure has to be protected, and that common African position has been essential for us in building support for common understandings on how IHL applies. We’ve brought that to the Americas, we’ve brought that to Europe, we’ve brought that to Asia, we’ve brought it all over the world. So, you know, despite the gap in technologies, I mean, leadership on recognition of the importance of humanitarian protections has really been actually quite global. Voila, and happy now to pass to Mauro. Before I give the

Joelle Rizk: floor to Mauro, if I may, the colleagues from the Global Cyber Security Forum are online right now so that we don’t lose that. I’d like to give them the floor for

Speaker: a comment or a question. Can you hear me? Yes. Wonderful. Thank you very much for giving me the floor. This is Amin from the Global Cyber Security Forum, and allow me first to present my sincere appreciation to ICRC for bringing this important topic to the OASIS Plus20. Undoubtedly, our relies on cyberspace is growing exponentially, and that’s why it is our collective duty to ensure that cyberspace is safe and secure. To do so, it is very important to have a proactive stance on many topics, and we can only congratulate ICRC for their forward thinking in addressing this topic of digital emblem. Since its inception, GCF vision, strategy, and operation were guided by three important principles. First, it is important to look at cybersecurity from the lens of cyberspace, with its geopolitical, technical, economical, social, and behavioral dimensions. Second, security and safety are not the ultimate objective. But they are means to enable prosperity of individuals, society and nations in cyberspace. The third one is that collaboration is a must. And when we talk about collaboration here, it is not about collaboration between stakeholders in the cybersecurity sector alone, but collaboration with all the sectors from health, energy, humanitarian, transport and others. So on this very particular topic of collaboration, and as an action-oriented organization, GCF created several collaboration platforms that include our knowledge community, the Center of OT Cybersecurity with Aramco, and the Center of Cyber Economics with the World Economic Forum. Another type of collaborative platforms the GCF is hosting is the impact networks. They are driven by the objective of implementation and actions. In this context, we are very happy to propose hosting an impact network that will bring together the national organization, cybersecurity companies, standardization organization, governments, infrastructure owner, to discuss and design strategy for the implementation of the digital emblem and other similar initiatives. So we bring this proposal to the attention of all stakeholders, including all colleagues who took the floor from ITU, ITF, and attending this meeting, and we will work with all interested parties in this initiative to extend an invitation to all the actors related to this topic to ensure inclusivity and effectiveness of the network. This is the end of our intervention.

Joelle Rizk: Thank you again for giving us the floor. Thank you very much. And this definitely speaks to the coordination and collaboration needed to create global common standards. On that matter, I give you back the floor maybe to complement, but in the of time if you may also focus on the question on expanding also this dialogue beyond recognized institutions to actors in the cyber domain that may not be your typical interlocutor and standardized institutions that we have dialogue with.

Mauro Vignati: So I would like to thank the representative of GCF for the support to this project, very very important although to the representative of the IQ who are absolutely interested in working with you and I think that to have him submitted will also start to facilitate this exchange. Also the representative of the government of Luxembourg, so the support of the government of Luxembourg to the ICC in the digital domain with the delegation of the ICC. Luxembourg is very very welcome and thank you very much for supporting that, for supporting this. On the specific of the hacker community or this typology of non-state hackers, Sumit already mentioned the hate routes, possibly the hackers, mentioned that we are publishing videos to explain those routes that are nothing new, it’s not that we are creating a new convention, it’s just that the good old IHL that is applied to the digital space, explaining with different words and different perspectives, but there is a direct approach we are having with those groups. We talk to them for different reasons, for the reasons of the countries where those groups are operating in, and we use this opportunity also to ask questions about the possible future in respect of the digital environment when they operate in this space, and we are having very good feedback from them. So we hope that in the future, activist groups that are running cyber operations for the sake of the armed conflict, in favor of… of one or the other particular conflict will respect the digital emblem. It’s not necessarily about the criminal group, it is something that we would like to increase our capability to discuss with a crime group. And we are keen and open to have any support from states or any other organization in this direction. And on the remark of the representative from Australia about the digital gap, I mean, one of the key word of the project is inclusion in technological terms. So that’s why we also welcome less technological countries to join us at the ITF to bring their perspective on how we should standardize the technology knowing that the goal here is to have a very simple technology, not reinventing anything new, but using technologies that are already standardized and to bring them together for the sake of the digital image. So the goal is, as I said, a very simple technology so that it can be used by any state and non-state actor independently from the level of sophistication in technological terms.

Joelle Rizk: Thank you, Mauro. I will return to the room for any last question or comment. And if not, I have one last question for you, Samir. Actually, it’s been on my mind since we started preparing for this session. As we progress on this project, how do we concretely imagine that states will technically and legally adopt the protective value of the digital emblem and being here, taking some risk with this question? Is there an ambition for a binding legal protocol? Well, yeah, that’s a really good question. I’ve kind of already hinted at this a little bit when I talked about Annex One of Additional Protocol One.

Samit D’Cunha: We’ve looked at sort of different means of incorporation. And again, I don’t want to preempt the discussion because ultimately, it’s for states to have new binding agreements on international humanitarian law. Our role as ICRC is to contribute, of course, to the discussion to the respect for and development of international humanitarian laws. We’re certainly part of that conversation, but it’s ultimately for states. But we’ve definitely thought about different possible means of incorporating the digital emblem into international humanitarian law, which is part of our consultations with states. So happy to share that now. So one possibility is actually amending the annex. So it’s amending the annex of Additional Protocol 1. That’s something that’s been done in the past. The last time, I believe, was in 1993. So there’s a possibility to amend Annex 1, which, as I mentioned earlier, is a technical annex, and to include sort of a chapter on the digital emblem, which would then, in a simpler way, let’s say, bring the digital emblem directly into international humanitarian law. Another possibility, as you suggested, is indeed an adoption of a new protocol. So this would be a fourth protocol. I’ve already talked about the first two additional protocols of the Geneva Conventions. The third protocol was adopted in 2005 on the red crystal emblem. So each time I talked about the emblems, I mentioned the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, of course, and also the red crystal emblem. The red crystal emblem was created in that 2005 protocol. So there is precedence in that sense, then, to create a new protocol, a fourth protocol, for the digital emblem. And both options sort of have their advantages and disadvantages, and maybe we don’t have time to talk about that now. But it’s definitely part of our, again, discussions with states on what the best means forward is. But then there’s other possibilities as well. So one is a unilateral declaration by a state. So it’s kind of an ad hoc means that a state says, we recognize the digital emblem as part of international humanitarian law, and they can then recognize the standards as part of international humanitarian law. And then another ad hoc means is what we call a special agreement between parties to a conflict. So this is foreseen both in international and non-international. national armed conflicts, where parties to conflicts can simply agree to additional rules that apply in an ad hoc way to that conflict, and what we can envision is having sort of a boilerplate or a template for the digital emblem that then parties to conflict can use, and integrate then into their rules that apply in a specific conflict. And that might sound strange, parties coming to agreement, but the truth is parties to conflict come to agreements on different things, on prisoners of war, on different aspects of conflicts often, so that’s definitely a possibility that they could do that as well for the digital emblem, so those are kind of the different possible means. Another thing to keep in mind is that, I mentioned Annex I of Additional Protocol I, Additional Protocol I applies in international armed conflicts, and it created some other specific IHL emblems, like what we call the dangerous forces emblem, which is the three kind of concentric orange circles for dams, dikes, and nuclear generating facilities in armed conflict. Another emblem is the civil defense emblem, which if you live in Switzerland, you’ve probably seen everywhere, because it’s one of the places where I’ve seen this civil defense emblem all the time, for of course the bunkers and other things. And so those are used outside of situations of international armed conflict, so even though there’s a legally binding document that creates a certain emblem, it’s then used outside of situations foreseen by that legal agreement. So we can also foresee sort of that more organic way of a use of a digital emblem. What’s key is the respect aspect and the trust aspect, that one, parties to conflict respect a digital emblem, and on the other side, that parties trust that when the emblem is used, it’s used to identify the applicable specific protections of IHL, and also trusted by the humanitarian organizations that can use the emblem, and also the medical services that use the emblem, which by the way, I’ve talked about a lot of different stakeholders. One stakeholder I haven’t mentioned yet is, of course the medical, the civilian medical services that can also use the emblem. situations of armed conflict that have also been unimportant and interlocutor for this process from the beginning. And the trust has to be there with them as well. And in that regard, the point made on filling the digital gap is indeed very important. Mauro, I turn over to you for any last comments

Joelle Rizk: before we close the session. Apologies, so I wanted just to reply to one remark

Mauro Vignati: that was in the chat, saying that the regulation is coming after the technology. So this is something that we are now used to see. I mean, the technology, the speed of development is faster than the legal one, which is not a bad thing, per se. So with the digital, we received several times the remark from the state that we should test, test, and test this solution. So to be able to present in front of the state a solution that is robust from a technological perspective, this is why we have no concern. We’ve seen a faster development from a technological perspective to be presented to a state actor to be able afterward to go through the paths that Samit explained in the previous answer.

Joelle Rizk: Thank you very much. Thank you. On this, I will repeat some of the key terms we heard in the session, trust, testing, and filling the digital gap, and working towards common standards through collaborating with cyber actors, states, technical and cybersecurity institutions, and humanitarian organizations and medical institutions. I cannot believe the task that is ahead of you. And thank you for all the work you’re putting into this and for all the technical experts and organizations collaborating on this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for digital emblem success

Speakers

– Samit D’Cunha
– Mauro Vignati
– Audience
– Speaker

Arguments

The ICRC took a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach to the Digital Emblem Project since 2020, involving consultations with states, Red Cross movement, private sector, and cyber experts

The working group at IETF allows all parties including governments, tech companies, and civil society to participate in discussions on how to standardize technology

ITU offers support for standardization efforts given their role in network infrastructure standards and 194 member states plus 1,000 private sector entities

The Global Cyber Security Forum proposes hosting an impact network to bring together various stakeholders for digital emblem implementation

Summary

All speakers agreed that successful implementation of the digital emblem requires extensive collaboration across governments, international organizations, private sector, civil society, and technical communities

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Technical standardization is crucial for global interoperability

Speakers

– Samit D’Cunha
– Mauro Vignati
– Audience

Arguments

Historical precedents exist for incorporating technical standards into international humanitarian law, including the 1863 standardization of the Red Cross emblem and 1970s incorporation of ICAO and ITU standards into Additional Protocol I

Technical standards are essential for harmonizing globalized exchange and enabling common communication capabilities across the internet

ITU offers support for standardization efforts given their role in network infrastructure standards and 194 member states plus 1,000 private sector entities

Summary

Speakers unanimously recognized that technical standards are fundamental for ensuring the digital emblem works consistently across different systems and jurisdictions globally

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Digital divide must be addressed for inclusive implementation

Speakers

– Samit D’Cunha
– Mauro Vignati
– Audience

Arguments

The ICT resolution recognizes the importance of state-led capacity building for access to humanitarian and medical digital infrastructure

The goal is to develop simple technology using already standardized components to ensure accessibility for all states regardless of technological sophistication

The digital gap between developed and developing countries poses challenges for digital emblem implementation in humanitarian crises

Summary

All speakers acknowledged that the digital divide poses significant challenges and that capacity building and simple, accessible technology solutions are essential for inclusive implementation

Topics

Development | Digital access | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both ICRC experts emphasized that the digital emblem is a practical, technical solution that directly translates existing physical world protections into cyberspace without creating new legal frameworks

Speakers

– Samit D’Cunha
– Mauro Vignati

Arguments

The digital emblem serves as a pragmatic technical tool to support compliance by enabling cyber operators to identify protected infrastructure

The project aims to translate the physical emblem one-to-one into the digital space using the same concepts and rules that apply in physical space

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers demonstrated that direct engagement with non-traditional cyber actors, including hacker groups, is not only possible but has shown promising results for building understanding and compliance

Speakers

– Samit D’Cunha
– Mauro Vignati

Arguments

The ICRC published ‘Eight Rules for Hackers’ to engage non-traditional interlocutors, receiving mixed but ultimately positive feedback from hacker groups

Direct dialogue with hacktivist groups operating in conflict zones has yielded positive feedback regarding potential respect for digital emblems

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both experts acknowledged that risks and misuse are inherent challenges but emphasized that the digital emblem incorporates the same risk management mechanisms as physical emblems

Speakers

– Samit D’Cunha
– Mauro Vignati

Arguments

Misuse is possible in digital space just as in physical space, but can be addressed through monitoring and state response to violations

The digital emblem can be removed when exposing it could become a risk factor, replicating the flexibility of physical emblems

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Engagement with hacker communities and non-state cyber actors

Speakers

– Samit D’Cunha
– Mauro Vignati

Arguments

The ICRC published ‘Eight Rules for Hackers’ to engage non-traditional interlocutors, receiving mixed but ultimately positive feedback from hacker groups

Direct dialogue with hacktivist groups operating in conflict zones has yielded positive feedback regarding potential respect for digital emblems

Explanation

It was unexpected that a traditional humanitarian organization like the ICRC would have direct, successful engagement with hacker groups and that these groups would show willingness to respect humanitarian principles in cyberspace

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

African Union leadership in developing IHL-ICT frameworks

Speakers

– Samit D’Cunha

Arguments

The African Union was the first regional group to develop a common position on IHL application to ICTs, demonstrating global leadership despite technological gaps

Explanation

Despite discussions about digital divides, it was unexpected that the African Union, representing countries often considered to have less technological infrastructure, would lead global efforts in developing legal frameworks for cyber-humanitarian law

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Technology development outpacing regulation as acceptable approach

Speakers

– Mauro Vignati

Arguments

Technology development often outpaces regulation, necessitating thorough testing before presenting solutions to state actors

Explanation

It was unexpected that in a legal and humanitarian context, there would be acceptance that technology should develop faster than regulation, with the approach being to test and prove technical solutions before seeking legal incorporation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, technical standardization, addressing digital divides, and the practical feasibility of translating physical humanitarian protections into cyberspace. There was remarkable agreement between ICRC experts and external stakeholders on implementation approaches.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no significant disagreements identified. The implications are highly positive for the digital emblem project, suggesting broad stakeholder support, clear technical pathways, and realistic approaches to addressing challenges. The consensus indicates strong potential for successful implementation and adoption of digital humanitarian protections in cyberspace.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Technology-first versus law-first development approach

Speakers

– Samit D’Cunha
– Mauro Vignati

Arguments

Several legal incorporation options exist, including amending Additional Protocol I, creating a fourth protocol, unilateral state declarations, or special agreements between conflict parties

Technology development often outpaces regulation, necessitating thorough testing before presenting solutions to state actors

Explanation

While both speakers are from the same organization (ICRC), they revealed different philosophical approaches to the project. Samit emphasized the legal framework development and diplomatic processes, while Mauro acknowledged that technology development should proceed faster than legal development and that states specifically requested extensive testing before legal incorporation. This represents an unexpected internal tension between legal and technical perspectives within the same project team.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus among speakers, with no direct disagreements identified. The main areas of difference were in implementation approaches rather than fundamental disagreements about goals or principles.

Disagreement level

Very low disagreement level. The discussion was characterized by collaborative consensus-building rather than debate. All speakers supported the digital emblem project and agreed on its importance, legal basis, and technical feasibility. The few areas of difference were constructive variations in approach (legal vs. technical priorities, different engagement strategies) rather than fundamental disagreements. This high level of agreement suggests strong momentum for the project but may also indicate limited critical examination of potential challenges or alternative approaches. The implications are positive for project advancement but may require seeking out more diverse perspectives to identify potential blind spots.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both ICRC experts emphasized that the digital emblem is a practical, technical solution that directly translates existing physical world protections into cyberspace without creating new legal frameworks

Speakers

– Samit D’Cunha
– Mauro Vignati

Arguments

The digital emblem serves as a pragmatic technical tool to support compliance by enabling cyber operators to identify protected infrastructure

The project aims to translate the physical emblem one-to-one into the digital space using the same concepts and rules that apply in physical space

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers demonstrated that direct engagement with non-traditional cyber actors, including hacker groups, is not only possible but has shown promising results for building understanding and compliance

Speakers

– Samit D’Cunha
– Mauro Vignati

Arguments

The ICRC published ‘Eight Rules for Hackers’ to engage non-traditional interlocutors, receiving mixed but ultimately positive feedback from hacker groups

Direct dialogue with hacktivist groups operating in conflict zones has yielded positive feedback regarding potential respect for digital emblems

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both experts acknowledged that risks and misuse are inherent challenges but emphasized that the digital emblem incorporates the same risk management mechanisms as physical emblems

Speakers

– Samit D’Cunha
– Mauro Vignati

Arguments

Misuse is possible in digital space just as in physical space, but can be addressed through monitoring and state response to violations

The digital emblem can be removed when exposing it could become a risk factor, replicating the flexibility of physical emblems

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The ICRC’s Digital Emblem project aims to extend the protective function of physical Red Cross/Crescent/Crystal emblems to cyberspace through cryptographic certificates that signal IHL protection to cyber operators

Strong multi-stakeholder support exists with 196 states adopting Resolution 2 at the 34th International Conference and 160+ tech companies pledging support through the Cyber Security Tech Accords

Technical standardization through the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is essential for global interoperability, with the DIEM working group established to develop internet standards

Historical precedents exist for incorporating technical standards into IHL, dating back to the 1863 standardization of the Red Cross emblem and 1970s integration of ICAO/ITU standards

The digital emblem serves as a compliance tool rather than a panacea, designed to enable identification of protected infrastructure by cyber operators including autonomous AI systems

Risk mitigation strategies include removable emblems when exposure creates risk, public cryptographic certificate monitoring, and state responsibility for addressing misuse

Addressing the digital divide is crucial, with capacity building needed to ensure developing countries can access and implement digital emblem technology

Direct engagement with non-traditional actors like hacktivist groups has shown positive results, with some groups agreeing to respect IHL rules in cyberspace

Resolutions and action items

ITU offered to collaborate on standardization efforts given their network infrastructure standards expertise and global membership of 194 states plus 1,000 private sector entities

Global Cyber Security Forum proposed hosting an impact network to bring together national organizations, cybersecurity companies, standardization bodies, governments, and infrastructure owners for digital emblem implementation

IETF DIEM working group to begin technical development work at IETF 123 in Madrid in coming weeks

Continued multi-stakeholder consultations needed with states, humanitarian organizations, and private sector on legal incorporation pathways

Enhanced outreach to hacktivist communities and non-state cyber actors to build understanding of IHL obligations in cyberspace

Capacity building initiatives required to address digital divide and ensure developing countries can participate in digital emblem implementation

Unresolved issues

The specific legal mechanism for incorporating digital emblems into international humanitarian law remains undecided (amendment to Additional Protocol I, new fourth protocol, unilateral declarations, or special agreements)

How to effectively reach and engage criminal cyber groups beyond hacktivist communities that may be motivated purely by profit rather than ideology

Concrete strategies for overcoming the digital divide to ensure humanitarian services in developing countries can access and implement digital emblem technology

The interaction between AI-powered autonomous cyber weapons and digital emblem recognition requires further technical development and testing

Accountability mechanisms for digital emblem violations in cyberspace remain challenging given attribution difficulties

The extent to which the digital emblem might inadvertently increase targeting risks by making protected assets more visible to malicious actors

Suggested compromises

Flexible implementation approach allowing for multiple legal incorporation pathways (treaty amendment, new protocol, unilateral declarations, or bilateral agreements) rather than requiring a single binding mechanism

Emphasis on simple, accessible technology using existing standardized components to accommodate varying levels of technological sophistication across countries

Removable emblem functionality to balance protection benefits with security risks when exposure might increase targeting

Organic adoption approach where digital emblems could be used outside formal legal frameworks while building trust and respect over time

Collaborative standardization process through multiple bodies (IETF, ITU) to ensure comprehensive coverage across different technical layers

Today, if we look at international headlines, it is not the protections that you indicated that dominate the headlines. It’s rather potentially violations of the law. So, if I may challenge, how, on what basis do we believe that the use of a protective emblem also in the cyberspace, a digital emblem, can also be protective?

Speaker

Joelle Rizk

Reason

This comment directly challenges the fundamental premise of the digital emblem project by questioning its effectiveness based on real-world violations of existing physical emblems. It forces the discussion to confront the gap between theoretical protection and practical implementation, addressing potential skepticism about the project’s viability.

Impact

This challenge prompted Samit to provide one of the most comprehensive defenses of the project, leading him to reframe violations as actually demonstrating the emblem’s importance (violations make news precisely because they’re violations of respected norms). It shifted the conversation from technical implementation to fundamental questions of compliance and effectiveness, deepening the analytical level of the discussion.

The goal of the project is to translate one-to-one to quote the physical emblem into the digital space… So, with or without a digital emblem, it’s already now possible to identify those assets. So, we don’t think that the emblem will increase the impact on these assets.

Speaker

Mauro Vignati

Reason

This comment addresses a critical concern about whether digital emblems might actually increase targeting by making protected assets more visible. Mauro’s insight that malicious actors can already identify hospitals and humanitarian assets through other means reframes the risk assessment and challenges assumptions about digital visibility creating new vulnerabilities.

Impact

This response helped address security concerns and moved the discussion toward practical risk mitigation strategies, including the ability to remove emblems when they might become risk factors. It demonstrated sophisticated thinking about the dual-use nature of identification systems and helped establish credibility for the project’s security considerations.

My question is surrounding the digital gap we’re seeing between developed and developing countries. Obviously, we see particularly in terms of humanitarian crises, lots of countries and services in these more developing countries are less able to access ICT services where the digital emblem would be most needed.

Speaker

Ollie (Australia)

Reason

This comment introduces a crucial equity dimension that challenges the universal applicability of a digital solution. It highlights the paradox that those most in need of humanitarian protection may be least able to access the digital infrastructure required to benefit from digital emblems, raising fundamental questions about technological solutions to humanitarian problems.

Impact

This question forced both speakers to address inclusivity and capacity building, leading Samit to highlight how the African Union was actually a leader in developing common positions on IHL in cyberspace. It shifted the conversation from technical implementation to questions of global equity and access, and prompted discussion of how the project must actively address rather than exacerbate existing inequalities.

We see AI implemented in cyber defensive capabilities, but also many other fields… malware, or we call them offensive or malicious code that operates without human intervention must be equipped with the capability to identify the IDs independently from the operating source… the malware must be coded in a way that they look for the emblem and understanding if the emblem is present, the attack must be avoided.

Speaker

Mauro Vignati

Reason

This comment introduces the complex intersection of AI and autonomous weapons systems with humanitarian protection, raising profound questions about how to program ethical constraints into autonomous systems. It represents a forward-looking challenge that goes beyond current cyber operations to anticipate future technological developments.

Impact

This observation opened up an entirely new dimension of the discussion, connecting the digital emblem project to broader debates about autonomous weapons and AI ethics. It demonstrated how the project must anticipate not just current cyber threats but future technological developments, adding significant complexity to the standardization requirements.

The distinctive emblems remain one of the most respected symbols globally and we really cannot lose sight of that in this discussion… A lot of the work that’s done by the medical services in situations of armed conflict is only possible because of the trust in the emblem… without the emblem a lot of the work that I did would be completely impossible.

Speaker

Samit D’Cunha

Reason

This personal testimony provides crucial context often missing from technical discussions – the lived experience of humanitarian workers who depend on emblem protection. It grounds the abstract legal and technical discussion in human reality and provides empirical evidence for the emblem’s continued effectiveness despite high-profile violations.

Impact

This comment fundamentally reframed the discussion from focusing on failures to recognizing successes, providing a more balanced assessment of emblem effectiveness. It added emotional weight and personal credibility to the technical arguments, and helped establish why digital translation of this protection is worth the complex effort being described.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a purely technical presentation into a nuanced exploration of the challenges and complexities of translating humanitarian protection into the digital age. The moderator’s direct challenge about effectiveness forced a deeper examination of compliance mechanisms, while the audience questions about digital divides and AI introduced critical equity and future-proofing considerations. The speakers’ responses demonstrated sophisticated thinking about risk mitigation, inclusivity, and the intersection of technology with humanitarian principles. Together, these exchanges elevated the discussion from technical implementation details to fundamental questions about how humanitarian protection can remain relevant and effective in an increasingly digital and automated world, while ensuring that technological solutions don’t exacerbate existing inequalities or create new vulnerabilities.

How can states ensure that the protection of data, of medical services and humanitarian operations is respected in cyberspace?

Speaker

Joelle Rizk

Explanation

This fundamental question about state obligations in protecting humanitarian digital infrastructure was posed but requires further exploration of practical implementation mechanisms.

What about accountability in cyberspace for violations of the digital emblem?

Speaker

Samit D’Cunha (referencing questions they receive)

Explanation

Accountability for digital emblem violations presents exponentially more difficult challenges than physical violations and requires further research into enforcement mechanisms.

How can we reach out to the broader tech community, hackers, and activists to ensure cultural adoption of digital emblem protections?

Speaker

Ambassador for Cyber and Digital of Luxembourg

Explanation

Beyond formal institutions, there’s a need to research how to effectively engage non-traditional cyber actors who may not be bound by formal agreements but operate in conflict zones.

What strategies can overcome the digital gap between developed and developing countries for digital emblem implementation?

Speaker

Ollie (humanitarian law expert from Australia)

Explanation

The digital divide creates disparities in who can access and implement digital emblem protections, particularly in humanitarian crises where they’re most needed.

How will AI-equipped cyber weapons and autonomous malware be programmed to recognize and respect digital emblems?

Speaker

Mauro Vignati (in response to Joelle Rizk’s AI question)

Explanation

As AI becomes more prevalent in cyber operations, research is needed on technical implementation of emblem recognition in autonomous systems.

What other network layers beyond internet standards might need digital emblem integration?

Speaker

Preetam Malur (ITU representative)

Explanation

The suggestion that ITU network infrastructure standards might also need digital emblem integration requires exploration of multiple technical layers.

How can we increase capability to engage with criminal cyber groups about respecting digital emblems?

Speaker

Mauro Vignati

Explanation

Unlike hacktivist groups, criminal organizations present different challenges for engagement and compliance that need further research and state support.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of different legal incorporation methods for the digital emblem?

Speaker

Samit D’Cunha

Explanation

While multiple legal pathways were identified (protocol amendment, new protocol, unilateral declarations, special agreements), their comparative analysis was noted as requiring more detailed discussion.

How can we develop statistical evidence about whether digital emblems increase or decrease targeting risks?

Speaker

Mauro Vignati

Explanation

The assumption that digital emblems replicate physical emblem dynamics needs empirical validation through research and testing.

How can we ensure robust testing of digital emblem solutions before presenting them to states?

Speaker

Mauro Vignati

Explanation

States have requested extensive testing of digital emblem technology, requiring research into comprehensive testing methodologies and validation processes.

Summary

The discussion centered on the final Leaders’ Talks of the WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event 2025, focusing on ICT applications to unlock the full potential of digital technologies. The panel featured high-level ministers and association presidents from various countries and organizations discussing digital governance, infrastructure development, and inclusive connectivity solutions.

Zimbabwe’s ICT Minister emphasized the importance of comprehensive policy frameworks, including updated ICT policies, broadband plans, and AI strategies, while stressing the need for whole-of-government approaches and international collaboration. The discussion highlighted environmental concerns regarding digital technologies, with ACEP’s president noting that digital consumption accounts for 10% of electrical consumption in France and could double by 2030, calling for eco-design solutions and extended equipment lifespans.

Gabon’s representative outlined ambitious connectivity goals, aiming for 100% coverage of inhabited areas by 2027, currently at 95% coverage with plans to connect 250 remaining villages using satellite technologies. India’s administrator detailed their comprehensive rural digitization strategy, connecting 640,000 villages through fiber optic networks and implementing use cases in telemedicine, digital education, e-governance, agriculture, and rural commerce to bridge the urban-rural digital divide.

The Netherlands’ Tech Ambassador stressed the importance of enabling policy environments that support free flow of information and human rights while ensuring meaningful digital inclusion for marginalized communities. Industry representatives highlighted technical innovation and collaboration as key drivers, with satellite technology identified as essential for reaching the 80% of landmass not covered by traditional infrastructure. The panel concluded that achieving universal connectivity requires coordinated efforts combining policy frameworks, infrastructure investment, and innovative applications that create meaningful value for all communities, particularly those in remote and underserved areas.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Governance and Policy Frameworks**: Government leaders emphasized the critical need for comprehensive ICT policies, regulatory frameworks, and strategic partnerships to unlock digital potential. Zimbabwe’s minister highlighted their AI strategy, broadband plans, and whole-of-government approach to avoid working in silos.

– **Environmental Impact of Digital Technologies**: Significant focus on the growing environmental footprint of digital infrastructure, with calls for eco-design of digital services, extended equipment lifespans, and energy-efficient AI systems. The discussion noted that digital consumption could double by 2030 and carbon emissions could triple by 2050.

– **Universal Connectivity and Digital Inclusion**: Multiple speakers addressed bridging the digital divide through various infrastructure approaches, including Gabon’s goal of 100% coverage by 2027, India’s rural connectivity initiatives serving 640,000 villages, and the essential role of satellite technology in reaching remote areas covering 80% of landmass.

– **Practical ICT Applications for Social Impact**: Concrete examples of digital transformation were shared, including telemedicine, e-governance services, digital education, precision agriculture, and e-commerce platforms that create meaningful economic opportunities for rural and underserved communities.

– **International Cooperation and Knowledge Sharing**: Emphasis on collaborative approaches, partnerships between governments and private sector, and the importance of learning from global best practices to accelerate digital development and ensure no one is left behind.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how ICT applications can unlock the full potential of digital transformation, focusing on practical strategies for governments, regulatory bodies, and international organizations to achieve inclusive and sustainable digital development as part of the WSIS Plus 20 review process.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently professional, collaborative, and optimistic tone throughout. Speakers were solution-oriented and forward-looking, sharing concrete examples and achievements while acknowledging challenges. The atmosphere was respectful and inclusive, with particular attention to multilingual participation (French and English). The tone remained constructive and focused on practical implementation rather than theoretical debate, reflecting the high-level nature of the participants and their shared commitment to digital inclusion and sustainability.

Speakers

– **Participant**: Role/Title not specified, Area of expertise not specified

– **Daniella Esi Darlington**: High-Level Track Facilitator, Area of expertise: Event facilitation and moderation

– **Tatenda Annastacia Mavetera**: Her Excellency Dr., Minister of ICT, Postal and Courier Services, Zimbabwe, Area of expertise: Digital governance and ICT policy

– **Laure de La Raudiere**: President of ACEP, Area of expertise: Digital environmental impacts and sustainability

– **Celestin Kadjidja**: President of Autorité de Régulation de Communication Electronique et des Postes (ACEP), Gabon, Area of expertise: Telecommunications regulation and connectivity

– **Niraj Verma**: Administrator of Digital Barrage Needy, India, Area of expertise: Broadband infrastructure and Universal Service Obligation Fund

– **Ernst Noorman**: Tech Ambassador and Cyber Ambassador of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Netherlands, Area of expertise: Digital policy and regulatory environments

– **Ran Evan Xiao Liao**: Corporate Vice President of the European and International Standardization, Ecosystem and Industry Development, Huawei, Area of expertise: ICT infrastructure development and technology innovation

– **Isabelle Mauro**: Director General (joining virtually), Area of expertise: Satellite technology and connectivity

**Additional speakers:**

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

# Summary: WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event 2025 – Leaders’ Talks on ICT Applications (Part 2)

## Introduction

The second part of the Leaders’ Talks on ICT Applications at the WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event 2025 was facilitated by Daniella Esi Darlington. The panel featured high-level representatives from Zimbabwe, France, Gabon, India, the Netherlands, and major technology companies. Daniella emphasized the 3-minute time limit for speakers and mentioned the “giant screen” to help manage timing.

## Speaker Contributions

### Zimbabwe – Comprehensive Digital Policy Framework

Her Excellency Dr. Tatenda Annastacia Mavetera, Zimbabwe’s Minister of ICT, Postal and Courier Services, emphasized the importance of establishing comprehensive policy frameworks for digital transformation. Zimbabwe has developed integrated approaches including updated ICT policies, national broadband plans, and artificial intelligence strategies to foster innovation and attract investment.

The Minister highlighted Zimbabwe’s implementation of national digitalization projects, including digital centers, ICT laboratories, and the Presidential Internet Scheme. She stressed the necessity of avoiding departmental silos and advocating for coordinated efforts across government ministries and regulatory bodies. She particularly valued international cooperation platforms like WSIS Plus 20 for benchmarking and learning from other countries, while raising the critical question of how to transition from dialogue to actual deployment and measurable deliverables.

### France – Environmental Sustainability Concerns

Laure de La Raudière, President of ACEP (Autorité de Régulation de Communication Electronique et des Postes), introduced critical environmental considerations. She presented statistics showing that digital technologies account for 10% of electrical consumption in France and could double by 2030, with carbon emissions potentially tripling by 2050.

Using a sports metaphor, de La Raudière observed that “Digital could be a very good environmental coach, but first of all, it has to stop smoking in the locker room.” She called for eco-design of digital services, extended equipment lifespans, better recycling design, less computing infrastructure, and operating systems capable of functioning effectively for over 10 years.

### Gabon – Connectivity and Digital Services

Christine Khadija, President of Gabon’s telecommunications regulatory authority ACEP, outlined ambitious connectivity goals, aiming for 100% coverage of inhabited areas by 2027. Currently at 95% coverage, Gabon plans to connect the remaining 250 villages using satellite technologies.

Gabon’s digital transformation strategy includes the Gabon Digital project encompassing e-tax systems, e-visa platforms, online scholarship applications, and school management systems. Khadija also announced that “starting this month, tourists are exempted from having to have a visa to come to Gabon.”

### India – Rural Digitalization and Meaningful Applications

The Administrator of Digital India detailed India’s comprehensive rural digitalization strategy, connecting 640,000 villages through high-speed fiber optic networks under the Universal Service Obligation Fund. India addresses significant connectivity gaps, with urban areas achieving 100% connectivity while rural areas remain at 60%.

The representative emphasized that “Connectivity is not equal to users. Users will come from capability, trust, and relevance… universal access matched with meaningful application will result in transformations.” India’s approach includes comprehensive service delivery through telemedicine (including the eSanjivani app), health ATMs, digital education, e-governance, agricultural applications, rural e-commerce, and the ONDC platform.

### Netherlands – Human Rights and Digital Inclusion

Ernst Noorman, Tech Ambassador and Cyber Ambassador of the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, provided a human rights perspective on digital governance. He emphasized that enabling policy and regulatory environments must bridge digital divides while ensuring meaningful digital inclusion for all persons, particularly marginalized communities.

Noorman highlighted the principle of “nothing about them, without them,” stressing that affected communities must be central to policy-making processes. He noted that many countries still lack enabling environments for digital inclusion and called for updates to WSIS frameworks to reflect current challenges and the diversity of internet users in 2025.

### Satellite Technology Perspective

Isabelle Mauro, Director General joining virtually, provided insights into satellite technology’s role in universal connectivity. She presented the statistic that traditional mobile and fiber infrastructure covers only 20% of global landmass, leaving 80% dependent on satellite solutions. This area houses millions of people and is critical for economic growth and basic needs provision.

Mauro advocated for viewing satellite technology not merely as a backup solution but as an essential strategic pillar of government digital strategies. She emphasized that satellite technology provides instant, scalable coverage across entire territories, enabling applications such as telemedicine, remote learning, precision agriculture, and environmental monitoring in underserved areas.