Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on the critical need for international data governance frameworks in the AI era, featuring experts from major international organizations including the ILO, OECD, UNICEF, and civil society groups. The panelists emphasized that while national data governance frameworks exist, they are insufficient given that most data flows across borders to cloud systems beyond national control. Steve McFeely argued that international principles are needed to establish guardrails for data exchange between different jurisdictions with varying ideologies around digital sovereignty.

The Global Digital Compact, adopted as part of the UN’s Pact for the Future, was highlighted as providing a unique opportunity to advance international data governance through a multi-stakeholder working group with equal representation from governments and non-state actors. The discussion emphasized that data governance must be human rights-based, with particular attention to protecting children’s rights, privacy, and dignity. Speakers stressed that children and young people should participate in shaping data governance frameworks since they will be most affected by these decisions.

Cybersecurity was identified as inseparable from data governance, with experts noting that governance without security is like “a constitution without a judiciary.” The panelists agreed that AI has brought unprecedented attention to data governance issues, though many organizations are rushing to adopt AI without proper data governance foundations. Key challenges identified include ensuring equitable access to data and its benefits, addressing power asymmetries between different stakeholders, and managing the tension between convenience and data protection. The discussion concluded that effective data governance requires balancing individual agency with collective benefits through a new social contract for the digital age.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Need for International Data Governance Frameworks**: The panelists emphasized that national data governance alone is insufficient in our interconnected digital world. With data flowing across borders to cloud services and different jurisdictions with varying ideologies (“three digital kingdoms”), international cooperation and shared principles are essential to ensure data is treated with respect and consistency globally.

– **Human Rights and Child-Centric Approach to Data Governance**: The discussion highlighted the importance of grounding data governance in human rights principles, particularly focusing on children’s rights. This includes protecting privacy and dignity, ensuring autonomy over data use, preventing algorithmic bias that could limit children’s development, and involving young people in shaping data governance policies.

– **Cybersecurity as Essential to Data Governance**: The panelists stressed that data governance and cybersecurity are inseparable – data governance without cybersecurity is like “a constitution without a judiciary.” Cybersecurity enables and enforces data governance policies, ensuring access controls, data integrity, and privacy protections are actually implemented rather than just outlined on paper.

– **AI’s Impact on Data Governance Urgency**: The rise of AI has brought unprecedented attention to data governance issues, with AI systems requiring massive datasets often collected without consent. While AI has elevated the political importance of data governance, it has also created new challenges around data extraction, bias, and the need for transparency in training datasets.

– **Equity and Access as Core Challenges**: A central theme was ensuring equitable access to both data and the benefits derived from data. This includes addressing power asymmetries between different stakeholders, ensuring marginalized communities aren’t excluded from governance conversations, and developing business models that distribute AI and data benefits more fairly across global populations.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore the critical need for international data governance frameworks in the AI era, examining how different stakeholders can collaborate to create ethical, secure, and equitable approaches to managing data across borders while protecting human rights and enabling innovation.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was professional and collaborative throughout, with panelists building on each other’s points constructively. There was a sense of urgency about addressing data governance challenges, balanced with cautious optimism about opportunities for progress through initiatives like the Global Digital Compact. The discussion maintained a practical focus on real-world implementation challenges while emphasizing the human impact of data governance decisions.

Speakers

– **Rafael Diez de Medina** – Chief Statistician of the International Labour Organization, moderator/host of the panel

– **Steve Macfeely** – Chief Statistician and Director of Statistics and Data at the OECD

– **Claire Melamed** – CEO of the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data

– **Francesca Bosco** – Chief Strategy and Partnerships Officer at the Cyber Peace Institute

– **Friederike Schuur** – Chief Data Governance and Strategy at UNICEF

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions during the Q&A session, including:

– Someone from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights working on human rights and digital technology

– Someone from Brazil

– Someone from the Department of Commerce

– An assistant professor at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Policy (KAIST) studying AI policy

**Additional speakers:**

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

# International Data Governance in the AI Era: Panel Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion took place as a side event during the AI for Good conference, moderated by Rafael Diez de Medina, Chief Statistician of the International Labour Organization. The panel brought together experts from major international organisations to examine the need for international data governance frameworks in the AI era. The distinguished panel featured Steve Macfeely, Chief Statistician and Director of Statistics and Data at the OECD; Claire Melamed, CEO of the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data; Francesca Bosco, Chief Strategy and Partnerships Officer at the Cyber Peace Institute; and Friederike Schuur, Chief Data Governance and Strategy at UNICEF.

The discussion was particularly timely given the recent adoption of the UN’s Global Digital Compact in September as part of the Pact for the Future, which establishes new mechanisms for international cooperation on digital governance issues.

## The Inadequacy of National Data Governance Frameworks

### The Reality of Data Flows

Steve Macfeely opened with a fundamental challenge to conventional thinking about data sovereignty: “Most of our data are going straight to the cloud, and after that we have no idea where those data are going… very few countries control the data in their country.” He argued that whilst governments may believe they have control over data within their borders, the reality is that most data flows to cloud services beyond any single nation’s jurisdiction.

Macfeely introduced the concept of “three digital kingdoms” representing different approaches to data control, though he noted these create fundamental challenges for international data exchange as each operates under different assumptions about who should control data and for what purposes.

### Data as Human Identity

Perhaps most significantly, Macfeely reframed the discussion by observing: “There’s a phrase now, we are our data.” This conceptualisation elevated data governance from a technical issue to something fundamentally about human identity and dignity, influencing the entire subsequent discussion.

## AI as a Catalyst for Data Governance Attention

### The Inconvenient Truth About AI’s Role

Macfeely provided a candid assessment: “We have to thank AI that we’re having this conversation. Data governance has been important for a long time, but nobody cared less about it until artificial intelligence surfaced.” This observation highlighted how AI’s prominence has finally brought necessary political attention to data governance issues that experts had been raising for years.

### AI’s Unprecedented Data Appetite

Friederike Schuur warned that “AI opens door to pervasive data extraction far exceeding anything seen before, threatening trust.” She provided a concrete example of how AI systems are being developed for everyday tasks: “There’s going to be an AI agent that’s going to book your dinner… it’s going to know where you want to go, what you want to eat, who you want to eat with.”

Francesca Bosco noted that “AI systems trained on enormous datasets scraped without consent create challenges of opacity, bias, and security risks,” emphasising how current AI development practices often bypass traditional consent mechanisms.

## The Global Digital Compact as a Governance Opportunity

Claire Melamed highlighted the Global Digital Compact as providing an opportunity for advancing international data governance through a multi-stakeholder working group with equal representation between governments and non-state actors. She emphasised that this balanced representation model represents a departure from traditional state-led international governance mechanisms.

Importantly, Melamed clarified that any international framework would complement rather than replace national data governance systems, recognising legitimate national roles whilst acknowledging that purely national approaches are insufficient for cross-border data flows.

## Protecting Children in Digital Spaces

### The Right to Make Mistakes

Friederike Schuur brought crucial attention to children’s vulnerabilities in digital environments, warning about educational platforms that “record everything that a child makes.” She expressed concern that comprehensive data collection could lead to children being “slotted into a particular development path because of something that they have done at one point.”

Schuur introduced a powerful concept: “Childhood really means you get a second, a third, a fourth, a fifth, and so many chances because you deserve it.” This principle challenges data governance systems to account for human development over time, ensuring that early data points don’t create permanent constraints on children’s future opportunities.

She also emphasised involving children directly in data governance conversations, noting that they “understand the issues well” and should participate in shaping governance agendas that will affect them.

## Cybersecurity as Governance Foundation

### The Constitution and Judiciary Analogy

Francesca Bosco provided a memorable insight: “Data governance without cybersecurity is like a constitution without a judiciary – it might outline rights and responsibilities, but it cannot enforce or protect them.” This positioned cybersecurity not as a technical add-on but as fundamental to the entire governance structure.

Bosco explained her organisation’s mission: “The Cyber Peace Institute works to protect vulnerable organisations… we work with hospitals, schools, humanitarian organisations.” She emphasised that cyberattacks affect “real people” and can cause “double victimisation of beneficiaries” when personal information is compromised.

### Addressing Power Asymmetries

Bosco highlighted “asymmetries of power and protection” in current arrangements, observing that data governance frameworks are “disproportionately shaped by actors in technologically advanced economies” whilst “most affected actors” are excluded from governance conversations.

## Equity and Access Challenges

### The Commodification Problem

Steve Macfeely identified “equity of access to data” as “the big issue,” arguing that “as data become more and more valuable, as people recognise the value of it, it’s naturally going to be commodified and that means ownership.” This highlighted challenges around ensuring fair access and preventing concentration of data resources among already powerful actors.

Claire Melamed emphasised addressing “business models and commercial parameters” to ensure “equitable distribution of benefits from data,” recognising that technical solutions alone are insufficient without addressing underlying economic structures.

## Practical Implementation Challenges

### The Convenience-Privacy Trade-off

An audience member from Brazil raised the practical challenge of how people “trade convenience for data” without fully understanding risks, citing “employees using their own account of ChatGPT without an institutional and corporate account to upload corporate documents.”

### The Expertise Gap

An audience member from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights posed a fundamental question: “How much agency can we give them regarding their own data when even experts don’t know how data can be used?” This highlighted the tension between individual autonomy principles and the practical reality that even sophisticated users may not fully understand implications of their data choices.

### Global AI Development

An academic from KAIST raised concerns about “under-investment in AI and data systems in areas like the African continent,” noting that “communities need data collection for AI systems to work without harm.” This highlighted tensions between inclusive AI development and potentially exploitative data collection practices.

The same academic introduced the concept of “data donation,” asking whether people might be willing to donate data for beneficial purposes, similar to blood donation.

## Areas of Consensus and Remaining Tensions

### Strong Agreement

The panellists demonstrated consensus on several principles: equity of access to data represents the core challenge; data governance must be human rights-based with particular attention to vulnerable populations; and international cooperation is necessary whilst complementing rather than replacing national frameworks.

### Different Approaches to Equity

Whilst agreeing on equity’s importance, panellists emphasised different approaches: Macfeely focused on ownership and commodification issues; Melamed emphasised regulating business models; and Schuur prioritised rights-based approaches with special attention to children.

### Data Requirements for AI

A tension emerged around data needs for effective AI. Schuur argued that “delivering valuable AI services doesn’t require very large datasets,” whilst the academic audience member emphasised data collection from underrepresented communities to ensure AI systems work without causing harm.

## Looking Forward

The discussion revealed both the complexity of international data governance challenges and potential for collaborative solutions. As Claire Melamed noted in closing, the goal is creating “a social contract around data” that balances individual rights with collective benefits.

The panellists consistently returned to human dimensions of data governance, rejecting purely technical framings in favour of approaches recognising data as fundamentally about human identity and dignity. The Global Digital Compact’s multi-stakeholder approach represents a significant opportunity to test new models for international cooperation on these critical challenges.

The path forward requires sustained collaboration across sectors, attention to power imbalances and capacity building needs, and creative approaches to balancing individual agency with collective benefits. The current moment of AI-driven attention to data governance provides a unique opportunity for meaningful progress on these fundamental challenges.

Rafael Diez de Medina: So, good afternoon. We are very happy to start our event now on Data First in the AI Era, the Case for Data Governance. This afternoon, we are going to have, I think, an interesting discussion on various topics around data governance. I think some years ago, we were talking about data revolution, but now I think the revolution is well-established, and we are suffering, or all are, under an avalanche of data produced by many sources. But of course, artificial intelligence came unexpectedly to disrupt everything and to overrun all our initial thoughts of how the data revolution was going to be tamed or something like that. I think now we are all immersed in this new environment, an ecosystem of data that is affecting us all in all aspects of our lives. It has implications for geopolitical implications for our daily lives. We are producing millions and millions and trillions of data every moment. So more than ever, I think the discussion around how this should or not be governed, it’s more than topical. And I think this is the interesting part of this panel in particular. We are having different discussions around different global governance, national governance. So I think it will be very interesting to hear from our distinguished panelists. I am Rafael Díaz-Medina, the Chief Statistician of the International Labour Organization. And I am very happy to host distinguished speakers today. Let me introduce them and then start and kick off the discussion. We have Steve McFeely, the Chief Statistician and Director of Statistics and Data at the OECD. We have Claire Malamed, CEO of the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data. We have Francesca Bosco, Chief Strategy and Partnerships Officer at the Cyber Peace Institute. And we have Friederike Schuur, Chief Data Governance and Strategy in UNICEF. So we are very happy and lucky to have all of them who have a long experience on the issues that we are going to speak. So to kick off, I will go directly because we have a limited time. We have different, I would say, initial thoughts. And I will start by Steven. And with very concrete questions, why do we need international data governance in addition to national regional data governance frameworks? Why start with principles?

Steve Macfeely: OK, good afternoon, everybody. I’m glad to see so many people here. So the question, why international data governance? And I think this is a really good question because it’s the question that I get challenged on most. So I’ve discussed this with many countries. And they say, well, we have our own national data governance plan. We have our own national data governance strategy. That’s enough. And honestly, I think that’s a fallacy. I think it’s a very reassuring fallacy. But it’s one that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. So we hear a lot today about national data sovereignty. And I would ask everybody to think about what that means in practice. So it’s a very reassuring term, but very few countries control the data in their country. Most of our data are going straight to the cloud, and after that we have no idea where those data are going. And this is why we need some sort of an international agreement or component to ensure that we have some sort of guardrails, some guidelines on how to exchange data from one jurisdiction to another. So in the literature we talk about the three digital kingdoms, which is really based around individual sovereignty, state sovereignty, and commercial sovereignty, and you can probably guess how they align geographically. And it’s not clear how we exchange data between those three kingdoms or those three jurisdictions because the ideologies are so different. And this is really why we need some sort of an international framework that helps us to exchange our data safely. I would remind you, when we talk about data, oftentimes we’re tempted to look at this as an economic proposition only. This is about securing the digital economy. But it’s much, much more than that. I mean, our data are essentially who we are. There’s a phrase now, we are our data. I mean, there’s so much of our life, as Raphael said, is recorded. So our aspirations, our dreams, our privacy, our health status, everything is up in the cloud. And if those data are moving to jurisdictions that don’t treat them with the same respect that I would like them to be treated where I live, then I think we have a problem. And I think we have a right as citizens of the world to demand that our information are treated with respect. So very quickly then to finish up, why principles? Principles is a good way to start, I think, because this is a tricky conversation. So I think if we can agree on basic principles which set out the high level broad brush aims and aspirations that we would like to achieve, I think that’s a good way, it’s a good way to set a North Star. We can agree on those, I think, relatively quickly, I hope. If anybody would like to see one proposition, we’ve published a paper on what we think would be good principles. But there are many others and I think we need to discuss that. Then after that, I think we can get into the nuts and bolts of how we would actually implement some sort of an agreement. Thank you.

Rafael Diez de Medina: Thank you, Steve. I will go now to Claire and ask her what is the opportunity created through the Pact for the Future and the Global Digital Compact for advancing international data governance in practice?

Claire Melamed: Thank you very much. I think there’s two levels to this. There’s obviously the Global Digital Compact more broadly sets out a framework for international cooperation, shared norms, a shared global agenda on a broad range of topics around this, of which data is one, around the broad area of AI and digital cooperation. That in itself has huge value and will have, I suspect, ramifications that will unfold over time as the initiatives that fall out of that develop. But it also presents a very specific and important opportunity on this topic on data governance, which is that in the Global Digital Compact, which, as we all know, was agreed as part of the Pact for the Future last September, there is a specific mandate provided to begin a multi-stakeholder process on data governance. I think that presents us with a. you know, so far, I think, unique opportunity. There are huge numbers of data governance processes. As Steve said, there are a huge number of principles that have been developed, of different pilots and initiatives. And, you know, it’s not a problem that has not, is suffering from lack of attention per se. It’s a problem that is suffering, I would say, from a lack of sort of the kind of attention that can deliver sustained and coordinated, and, you know, fully agree with Steve in that, you know, this has to be something that we look at on a global level. So it’s that kind of sustained, the sort of pathway to that sort of global agreement that I think to date, we haven’t had in the system, despite all of the many initiatives that have been going on. And I think it’s that which the Global Digital Compact offers us the potential for. It’s a really interesting process. I’m slightly intimidated sitting here with the two people who are leading that process. Peter Major, who is the chair of the working group that has been set up, and Aral from UNCTAD, who’s leading the secretariat. But there was a work that the Global Digital Compact sets up a working group, which is interesting by nature of being a multi-stakeholder working group. It contains even numbers of members from governments, representing member states from all of the different regions represented in the United Nations, and an equal number of non-government stakeholders. And I think, you know, anyone who’s been around this week and has seen the sort of vibrancy of the conversation, which, you know, has been, I think, in at least the panels I’ve been at this week, very evenly balanced between governments, private sector, civil society. You know, it’s an absolutely necessary way to have the conversation given. the way the market is, the way technology is developing, the way all of this works. So I think we have an opportunity through this group, through the many consultations and interactions that will be possible with this group while it goes about its work, to do some of the things that, as Steve said, absolutely need to happen, which is to pull together the many, many things that do exist and create some sort of framework, some sort of pathway for delivering that global perspective, not to displace the different national frameworks, but to provide that layer that will allow them to talk to each other in the way that the technology, frankly, demands that we do.

Rafael Diez de Medina: Thank you, Claire. Thank you a lot. And Friederike, you champion child rights-based and child-centric data governance. Do tell us why.

Friederike Schuur: Well, that’s a very short and sweet question. I love it. Thank you all for coming. It’s really a pleasure to be here to speak alongside all of you. What’s important here is that data, it’s not just an economic commodity. We really have to think about the relationship when we speak about data governance between enabling innovation, fostering really vibrant digital economies, but also at the same time protecting and advancing the interests and the rights of people. And that also includes young people and children. Of course, I work for UNICEF, so this is very close to my heart. And there’s an opportunity also for us to really think about some foundational documents, in particular in the United Nations system. And for all of us, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the CSE, the Convention of the Rights of the Child, that offer us a grounding really for the dialogue that we can have on international data governance facilitated through some of the mechanisms that Claire just mentioned. Really, it’s a case where all laws have new relevance for new technologies because they continue to really stand and they continue to provide us with a very solid foundation. that we can build upon as we think about how we want to move forward when it comes to data and when it comes to AI, and how we can realize really the benefits of data and AI equitably and for all. And to make that a bit more specific, what does it actually mean? Like human rights-based data governance, child rights-based data governance? I can’t be comprehensive here, we have very little time today for this conversation, but let me pull out a few specifics. One that I want to lead with is really privacy and protection. Now Steve, you just mentioned our data are who we are, and then I add to that, it’s like just like us, our data deserves protection and we deserve privacy. And reflecting a bit on the sort of sibling conference that is happening right now, the AI for Good conference, agentic AI, super hot right now, right? Like there’s a risk where we again trade convenience for data, and it is increased now compared to where we were when sort of digital services, think about the emails that we all have, our private emails that we sort of subscribe to, right? Something that we have to start thinking about. Another element, second one is really about dignity and autonomy and how we can think about data governance, putting in place data governance that helps protect dignity and that helps enable autonomy. Part of that is also to give individuals, but also groups and communities control over the use of their data. It’s very hard to understand these days how data is actually used when you engage with digital services, and it makes it difficult to really have that autonomy. But it goes further, like if we think about children growing up, developing, they have a right to develop to their full potential. That also means making mistakes without being afraid of the repercussions. But now think about educational platforms in the classrooms, right, that record everything that a child makes. Now we have to make sure that that is not going to slot them in to a particular development path because of something that they have done at one point. I mean, childhood really means you get a second, a third, a fourth, a fifth, and so many chances because you deserve it, because that’s how you have to… move forward. Think about also on that point agentic AI and how it might affect socio-affective development of children as the environment keeps reacting to them. So these are questions that do touch on data governance because data governance is one of the core and crucial inputs also into AI of course. The last point I wanted to pull out is really around participation by children and young people also in shaping how we move forward with the data governance agenda. Children and young people should have an opportunity to sort of express their view and also help us guide how we set up international data governance. We’ve done that actually at the last UN World Data Forum. Some of you might have been there. For example Steve you were interviewed by one of our youth speakers. We had a delegation more than 20 children and young people who sort of attended. It was very meaningful to them to be there because they got to ask all their questions and most importantly they got to express their views. They understand a lot about a technical issue such as data governance. They’re worried about a lot of things. They see the opportunity that is inherent in AI but they’re also worried what it might mean for the planet. A lot of children in rural communities are worried about not being able to sort of like be connected to that movement that offers opportunities to them but maybe not to them because they’re part of the unconnected. But there’s another benefit if you listen to children you actually understand where the real value lies that we have to realize. Data governance is not a technical issue right it is one about realizing benefits to real people and that includes our future generations and so as that participation by children actually helps us what benefits all of us ultimately which is really making sure that data governance serves to shape innovation and really help bring about digital economies that are equitable and that really drive the benefit for society. Thank you.

Rafael Diez de Medina: Thank you Friederike. I think it’s it’s very clear that we have these discussions between the global national framework frameworks for governance. But thank you for giving us the human part of the governance and the data governance. They need to have that. But you also touch on important things like privacy and certain things that Francesca, I would ask you, because data governance is not only standing up by itself. We can, can you speak a bit about the role of cybersecurity for strong data governance and the risks that if we fail to bring these two together?

Francesca Bosco: Thank you so much. And it’s a pleasure to be here with such a distinguished speakers and thanks a lot for the participation. So your observation is absolutely correct. So data governance and cybersecurity are inseparable. And I often think about data governance without cybersecurity is like a constitution without a judiciary in a way, because it might outline like rights and responsibilities, but it cannot enforce or protect them. So we have to think about them in the same way. Conversely, cybersecurity without governance, risk could become a tool that it’s often, let’s say used for surveillance or exclusion. So I think that really together, they form a sort of like pillar of responsible data stewardship. And I like to think about cybersecurity as an enabler of data governance. Because data governance is really establishing the strategic framework of like rules, responsibilities, policies for managing data ethically and lawfully, but cybersecurity ensures that those rules are actually followed, protected. And there are some, let’s say key concept that maybe we can share. I know that we have limited time, but just to give some food for thoughts. So for example, in terms of like access control, governance tell us who should have access to the data and cybersecurity ensures that only those people do. When we think about, it was mentioned before, also data integrity and availability, governance has set the expectations for data quality and continuity and cybersecurity protect against, for example, tampering, loss of ransomware induced disruptions. When we think about privacy enforcement, as you just mentioned, on one hand, governance aligns with regulations like GDPR, notably, At the same time, cybersecurity ensures that those policies are enforced through tools like, for example, encryption, secure data transfer, data masking. So it really goes hand in hand. And because the question was around the risk, when we think about risk-based prioritization, not all data carries equal risk. And so cybersecurity tools like, I’m thinking like a threat modeling, vulnerability scanning, for example, help identify which data asset required the most protection and oversight. Let me bring it to, let’s say, to two last points. One is really related to, okay, what it means in practice. And I can tell you what we are facing. We are a civil society organization, we’re based in Geneva, but the mandate is global. And we have the mission, basically, to expose the real consequences, the real harm that cyberattacks are causing on society, and to provide the free protection, free cybersecurity protection to, I would say, the most vulnerable organizations. And in doing this, we have to, we are at the same time, let’s say, data provider in a way, because we work a lot with the data, collecting data about the cyberattacks, collecting data about the organization that we’re working with. And at the same time, we are building capacity of those organizations in understanding the risk, if, I mean, if data are not protected correctly, and how to better do so. And I really like what Friederike was mentioning in terms of like, it’s about real people. One key mission that we have is also to increase the understanding that we need to give a human dimension to data. And I mean, obviously, I speak about, let’s say, in a way, the dark side, meaning, for example, I mean, the real impact of cyberattacks. And too often, we think about, for example, cyberattacks on data, as just impacting, let’s say, the economic infrastructure or the devices that are attacked. Well, behind that, there are data, there are the data, for example, of those organizations that are working in the development humanitarian settings. And attacking those data doesn’t mean just, allow me to say, attacking the organization data, but it means also attacking the data of the beneficiaries, for example, risking for double victimization. So we have to start thinking more about people and the relevance of data about the people. So extending beyond, I would say, the traditional concerns such as privacy, information integrity, because the results can really devastate the life of ordinary people, basically. And allow me to finish with, okay, so what? Because I’m working for civil society, I’m always trying to be very concrete. So I think that to ensure, let’s say, stronger resilience data governance, cybersecurity must be built from the start. So it’s still too often, and this is why I very much welcome the question and the opportunity, too often cybersecurity is still seen as an afterthought. And so very practically speaking, security by design. So embed access control, encryption, monitoring in governance framework from the ground up. Right-based cybersecurity. It’s a pleasure to be here with such distinguished speakers, also because we are all talking about, in a way, from the same view of like, we need to embed the human rights principles, like privacy, dignity, freedom of expression, that align with cybersecurity practices. Understand the contextual sensitivity. So prioritise protection for high-risk data, for example, and high-risk actors, such as biometric data in refugee contests, health data in fragile states. And it was mentioned before, also the international dimension. It’s super key to follow what is happening when it comes to the international, for example, global norm settings. And I’m thinking specifically one process that we are very active in and it just ended the last cycle is the open-ended working group, for example, the UN open-ended working group. And it’s super important because it’s an opportunity for the multi-stakeholder community, as Claire was mentioning, to tap basically into governance and improve accountability and deterrence.

Rafael Diez de Medina: Thank you so much. I think we have set the stage for a very, I think, interesting discussion and we, of course, we have several dimensions, we have touched on the key aspects and we have left many others that we may have that opportunity to hear from you all. But just to kick off with the panelists, I think you have touched on some of these areas, but it would be good to see or to hear from you. What is the one core issue or challenge that effective data governance must address? Who wants to?

Steve Macfeely: I think equity of access is going to be the big issue. As data become more and more valuable, as people recognize the value of it, it’s naturally going to be commodified and that means ownership. So I think ownership and access are going to be really, really challenging issues in the future.

Claire Melamed: Okay, if Steve hadn’t said that first, I probably would have said that. But I think just to follow on from that, I think once you have ownership and access, there’s also then the question of what are the sort of business models and the sort of commercial models and the parameters within which they’re regulated, which allows people to benefit from that. Access and which controls the distribution of that benefit. I mean, I think we’ve seen, you know, with the with the growth of with the sort of the way that social media and obviously social media runs on data too. So that’s not separate to this conversation, but it’s perhaps a sort of first generation of this technologies which are now evolving into all kinds of other things. So it gives us a bit of a sort of signal as to the way that if left unchecked, largely unchecked, these commercial models are going to develop and the way that data, however it’s owned, is going to evolve. be used. So I think we need to think about, you know, ownership per se from a sort of rights point of view, but also from a kind of economics point of view. I never feel like we talk enough about economics in these conversations. How can we set up the business models and the rules around them to make sure that that ownership is translated into business models which can spread the benefits in an equitable way?

Friederike Schuur: Well, if Steve hadn’t said it, and if Claire hadn’t said it, I mean it’s equity of access to data and equity of access to the benefits that can be derived from the data. It’s critical. Because so much flows from equity of access to the benefits from the data. And I think linked to that, now I can add something, I must add something, is I think really capacity development for empowerment. And by that I mean organizations, but I also mean citizens. So that they are better equipped to make their own voice and their own interests heard in the conversation through the channels that we also need to increasingly open up for them.

Francesca Bosco: And I think very much linked to what was said before, the challenge that I think allowed me to two points. One is that the redress of the asymmetries of power, agency, and protection that are kind of like deriving exactly from the equity point. And the reason is because data governance frameworks, let’s admit it, are disproportionately shaped by actors, I would say, with basically most of them, they are in technologically advanced economies in a way. And so the most affected by data-related decisions often are excluded, basically, from governance conversation. And so this imbalance basically leads to… extractive data practices, and representative data sets, and unequal protections. And together with the unequal protections, the second point that I want to make is that still we see that international law and data governance must evolve with the changing threat landscape, and we are not there yet. So I think that these two points, asymmetries of power and speed, still between evolving threat landscape and law and policies.

Rafael Diez de Medina: Thank you. Thank you very much. And now, of course, we are in the AI for Good conference. So how does AI excitement and adoption put a pressure on data governance? And how must data governance evolve for safe and responsible AI? Is the question. So we can start.

Francesca Bosco: I mean, I always feel like the black sheep, meaning that I’m biased. I’m always thinking about like, okay, what can go wrong? So no, but I mean, I think that what I’m thinking, and maybe that’s also, let’s say, my role in this panel. Believe me, I’m also a very optimistic person in general. Let’s start, let’s say, with the fundamentals, meaning that an AI system, and particularly I’m thinking like large models like GPT-4, Lama, are trained on enormous data sets that are scraped from the internet, right? So these data sets are often collated without consent. It was mentioned that in transparency, and this is really resulting in some major challenges. So I’m thinking like, for example, opacity, and we rarely know what data went, for example, into the training corpus, and this undermined accountability, for example, or reproducibility. Well, for sure, I mean, it’s a sort of like a common discussion. But I mean, for example, the bias and harm. So marginalized communities are often overrepresented in surveillance data and underrepresented, for example, in linguistic and cultural data. and i’m thinking about security risk so a models can be reversed engineer the basically to extract training data or for example targeted with data poisoning manipulated so i’m again i mean i’m i’m i’m here to to to to speak about the potential so this is why am i lighting those and i leave the floor to two colleagues to highlight some potential benefits

Friederike Schuur: well on that note you know i mean i like grounded optimism but sometimes we do have to construct the ground upon which we can stand and that i think is what we’re doing with this conversation in terms of the particular pressures on data governance because of offset of ai and how it’s evolving like um being here at the conference um i think when we talk about ai assistance so those are the alexas of the world when we talk about the genetic ai so like ai agents that are starting to actually complete tasks for us there was in one of the keynotes the example of an agent that is booking a dinner for me and my friends right like um super convenient um and i think many of us are probably already enjoying the convenience of some of the new ai tools that we have at our disposal um but really we must emphasize like that they’re really opening up the door towards pervasive data extraction that by far exceeds anything that we have seen so far um and that is a really big risk and then thinking about how we can safeguard trust because i mean in the end i think a lot comes down to trust trust amongst people trust amongst from people to organizations that is really what we have to safeguard right and and and when it comes to that i think um we we one is we need to actually like help build an understanding what is actually happening on the back end so to speak of the services that are providing um this kind of convenience we have to think about their perhaps I can’t say the word, remunerated, fair payment perhaps also for data where we feel it’s fine to sort of commoditize them in the way that that kind of approach would actually allow. And really what it comes down to is, I mentioned a trust, trust also that is necessary for us to keep believing in things that we are seeing. And that is also something that is put increasingly under pressure.

Claire Melamed: Thank you. I mean, I agree absolutely with all of what’s been said about the sort of risks to individuals and to whole systems if we allow AI in a sense to sort of plunder data unchecked and all of the various risks of that. I think there’s also the other side of this, which is, it’s very much in the interests of those who are developing AI models to get the data governance right. I don’t know whether anybody was in the hall on Tuesday listening to the interview with Will.i.am, who I’m a little bit too old to appreciate the music, but I certainly appreciate the insights. And he said, if you have poor data practices, guess what? You’re going to have, expletive deleted, bad AI. And I think there is a very strong interest among AI companies as well for data governance practices to get that right, to maintain the trust upon which the flows of data, upon which all AI depends, are maintained. So I think there’s a common interest in a sense here. I think it is, you know, it’s funny, I’ve been here since Tuesday, listened to lots of conversations about AI and governance and so on. And there’s a lot of that sort of Will.i.am quote, you know, I’ve heard a lot of sort of, oh, but of course data is terribly important and we have to govern it. Oh, but now we’re actually going to talk about the interesting stuff, which is the models itself and so on. So there’s a kind of acknowledgement that it’s really important. I think it is obviously driving. some of the sort of increased political traction that we’re seeing in data, you know, the UN Working Group, some of the, you know, governments are perhaps taking more interest in data governance than they have ever have done before, because it’s obviously become much more important across a range of interests, whether that’s security or economics or rights and so on, but somehow I feel like it still hasn’t quite got itself into the heart of this conversation where it needs to be. So I would say in answer to the question, I think that the sort of AI and the obvious connection between data governance and AI has increased the political interest, which is really my concern here. I think unless we have that political interest, we’re not going to get any of the things that we want in terms of regulation and governance. It’s raised it up the agenda, but I would say there’s probably still some way to go.

Rafael Diez de Medina: Thank you.

Steve Macfeely: Thank you. Yeah, I’m just going to repeat what Claire said in a different way. I mean, we have to thank AI that we’re having this conversation. Data governance has been important for a long time, but nobody cared less about it until artificial intelligence surfaced. The reason we have the new group hosted by UNCTAD is because of the global digital compact. When the UN developed the, when the chief executives board of the UN signed off on the principles and the broad white paper on data governance, the big challenge was to find a home. Where do we land this issue? And everybody agreed that data governance was really important, but it wasn’t important enough that anybody would want to discuss it. So, digitalization and AI have given us the platform. So, we’ve kind of come in in the back door and the challenge we have now is to help people interested in AI to understand that AI governance is not just about data governance. It’s about AI governance as a whole. can’t happen without data governance, that there’s a sequential order and data governance is a prerequisite to AI governance and that’s an unfortunate inconvenient truth. It’s one that maybe people are slowly coming around to and as Claire said, I mean, they kind of tolerate it, but we have to help them to understand that this is really important for them to help their objectives, so yeah.

Francesca Bosco: I don’t want one and that’s very interesting what you’re mentioning because in our experience that we are supporting, for example, many under resource organization, and that’s interesting because with with the Hype on AI, we receive many requests, we develop our own responsible AI approach, methodology principles and also guidelines and so we receive many requests of support from these are from those organization to set up their own policies. And the first question that I ask is, but do you have like a responsible data policy? Do you know how you collect the data? I mean, what is your government data governance framework? And they don’t. So I think it’s extremely important what you’re mentioning because also in practice, that’s the reality that we’re living in because of the of the Hype and the focus on AI, we’re forgetting about the basics and the essentials to, yeah, to both develop but also apply AI responsibly.

Rafael Diez de Medina: Okay, thank you. I think we have all the elements now to open the floor for questions to the panelists and to add to the things that we have been discussing. I think there are interesting points on AI and how AI is is impacting in the data governance and the opposite. I think it’s important now to to hear from you. Yeah, please.

Audience: Hi. So I work with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. human rights I work on issues of human rights and digital technology I want to ask you what is the role of the consumer so basically the end-user in data governance considering that let’s say the how much of an agency can we give them regarding their own data considering that they do not know or because even like even experts don’t know nowadays what in what ways can their data be used so how like where do you demarcate that that the governance will be done by the entities which are governing them through democracy we have given them that agency that you can go on certain aspects of my life but how much of an agency do I get in governing that data

Rafael Diez de Medina: okay now yes let’s let’s collect a couple of more questions and then we we

Audience: open oh thank you very much for this very interesting debate emulation from buzzer from Brazil very inspiring but I would like to quote what our colleague from UNICEF has said which is really critical in this debate trade convenience for data I thought this is a very important point because it relates to our behavior and we have seen a very rapid adoption of AI based applications like like a chat GPT and what we see in many organizations even in government employees are using their own account of a jet PT without an institution and corporate account to upload corporate documents or a contract without being aware that this behavior is very risky so I think that what what people is doing is trade convenience for data because they want to review or they want to translate a piece of a document or something but they don’t care about what they are doing and in many cases there is no then not even a corporate policy that would guide what to do with a JTPT for instance this is a very basic example that is happening I guess everywhere thank you yeah thank you yes please if

Rafael Diez de Medina: you can introduce yourself push the button

Audience: Does it come close we got it so just coming back to the point that was raised on data governance and the idea that we do have a national data governance framework and then whatever we come up with has got to acknowledge that autonomy in terms of having a national perspective of governance framework but when we then look at data as a commodity doesn’t that allow us to push the boundary boundaries towards in a more globally accepted standard when it comes to data governance and globally accepted adherence frameworks when it comes to two standards of data governance frameworks thank you any

Rafael Diez de Medina: other question you

Audience: different countries we hear that same thing and so how do you square the fact that Like there is, I think when we talk about data governance, we don’t necessarily acknowledge that the people who had access to the internet first came from urban areas, suburban areas, and even rural areas do not have kind of data that is necessary in order to kind of like fit for service. And that is true both across the US, but it’s true globally, particularly in areas where there are smaller areas where, there are smaller areas, thank you so much. There are smaller areas where languages are spoken that are not necessarily national or not necessarily represented in large-scale internet datasets, because those people are still not consistently connected to the internet. And so when we’re talking about AI and data governance, how do we square that circle of the fact that we want AI adoption across the world so that everyone can see the benefits of AI solutions and AI systems, but also that means that there is going to have to be some data collection from these communities in order for those systems to work in a way that does not imminently harm them and for there to be the kind of investment in those communities that these communities and countries and areas have been asking for. And I’m thinking particularly in the African continent because what we’re seeing is an under-investment in AI there and an under-investment in data systems there. Thank you. I don’t work for the UN. I’m an academic, I’m an assistant professor at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Policy, KAIST. And I study AI policy and more specifically, I study how data can be managed, especially in energy and transportation technologies. And I recently wrote a paper on data donation and how the two main consequences of data collection is one, the environmental problems caused by data centers and two, the privacy issues. And obviously my argument was that both can be solved by data donation, you know, privacy issue, you donate your data so that’s solved. With environmental sustainability, with more data donation, the quality of the data will be higher, less missingness, which means we will eventually need to collect less data and save less data because right now the data center is just saving way too much data in general, just a lot of trash there. So I was wondering whether there’s any discussion going on at the UN level on data donation and what your thoughts were.

Rafael Diez de Medina: Okay, thank you so much for the thing. I think we will have many, many others, but we have unfortunately a constraint of time. So I will ask you to react and pick up what you think.

Steve Macfeely: So lots of interesting questions and perspectives. The one I’d like to pick up is on the gentleman from the Department of Commerce. I would agree, but I’m gonna push back slightly as well. The digital divide created a data divide. So, okay, so that means any AI models, we have a representativity issue, but it’s not purely because the data weren’t there. There’s a lot of models. So in health models, we’ve seen a lot of models were trained on male data only. That wasn’t because of any paucity of data. That was a choice that AI modelers made. So I think we have to be careful not to broad brush. So the data divides, the digital divide exists, but it’s diminishing all the time. So I think the arguments you’re making, in fact, just reinforce the arguments for data governance. As countries start increasing their digitalization of data, it’s all the more reason that this topic becomes urgent and they put in place good governance before they stopped adopting widespread AI models and AI usage, because otherwise, we’re gonna see the problems replicating that didn’t have anything to do with data paucity. And I see you, we can have a bilateral, but I see you disagreeing, which is good.

Francesca Bosco: I can take the one from the gentleman next to me and specifically related to the challenges, let’s say to our responsible behavior internally. What I mentioned before is that at a certain point, even being, let’s say a tech savvy, a cyber savvy organization, we face indeed a very similar problem. And I remember, I mean, after the advent of ChatGPT during one of the, basically one full house, I simply asked, how many of you are using ChatGPT? And all the room went with the hands up. And I was like. Okay we have an issue here let’s close the shop for one second maybe and and and and this is why we i mean we we went into a process of developing our own that makes sense for us a responsible i’m approach to the use of a and the development of a because we also develop some a i based tools what i really suggest is that indeed try to understand which are the need so it’s not ai first but it’s the need first uh using charge gpt for example in a professional environment and address the specific need of the organization this means also that it’s not um let’s say a one time effort but for example in the responsible ai approach that we develop we went from principles into actual guidance guidelines embedding let’s say staff consultation across the different steps but also envisaging regular capacity building meaning regularly update what i mean you create as a framework and build the capacity internally to actively use the framework because a framework without being used it’s useless.

Friederike Schuur: We have to wrap up so i’m going to keep it very very short but i just wanted to add one point to what steve just said in response to uh your sort of um remark and that is to deliver valuable services through ai does not need to require very large data sets and i think it’s important that we keep that in mind because there are other benefits in addition to also being able to serve the global population more equitably and sustainability is really just one of them.

Claire Melamed: Thank you we give me give me this because there is a question on agency that hasn’t been answered and i think the question on agency and the question on the trading the convenience for data is similar and i think you know we don’t want to get into a situation where we become purist about it so we can never we have to have total agency and we can never trade convenience for data and these things. What we want, and this brings us back to data governance, is an environment like we have in every other area, that’s the basis of having a functioning, choosing to live together in a society and having a government, is that you trade off certain individual autonomy against the benefits that you get like the security and the collective action and the division of labor and all the things that you benefit from by living in a society and data is no different and I think the challenge that we’re facing here is not should we do it or shouldn’t we do it but what is the basis of that social contract essentially that will mean that we can do it in ways that have consent and that deliver obvious benefits.

Rafael Diez de Medina: Okay thank you, unfortunately we have to wrap up and finish but I think we had an interesting discussion, we have touched on key issues and particularly how data governance is a prerequisite for AI or sound AI and also the ethical and the risks that we have in all this so thank you so much to the speakers and thank you for your interest and I think that of course we have only touched on the tip of the iceberg of this important emerging and important topic as data governance so thank you so much. Thank you.

Agreement points

Equity of access to data and its benefits is the core challenge

Speakers

– Steve Macfeely
– Claire Melamed
– Friederike Schuur

Arguments

Equity of access is going to be the big issue. As data become more and more valuable, as people recognize the value of it, it’s naturally going to be commodified and that means ownership

Business models and commercial parameters need regulation to ensure equitable distribution of benefits from data

Equity of access to data and equity of access to the benefits that can be derived from the data. It’s critical. Because so much flows from equity of access to the benefits from the data

Summary

All three speakers identified equity of access as the fundamental challenge in data governance, recognizing that as data becomes commodified, ensuring fair access and distribution of benefits becomes critical

Topics

Economic | Human rights

Data governance is a prerequisite for AI governance

Speakers

– Steve Macfeely
– Claire Melamed
– Francesca Bosco
– Rafael Diez de Medina

Arguments

AI governance cannot happen without data governance, that there’s a sequential order and data governance is a prerequisite to AI governance

AI companies have strong interest in getting data governance right since poor data practices lead to bad AI

Organizations focus on AI policies while lacking basic responsible data governance frameworks

Data governance is a prerequisite for AI or sound AI and also the ethical and the risks that we have in all this

Summary

All speakers agreed that proper data governance must come before AI governance, with AI development dependent on sound data practices

Topics

Legal and regulatory

AI has brought necessary attention to data governance

Speakers

– Steve Macfeely
– Claire Melamed

Arguments

We have to thank AI that we’re having this conversation. Data governance has been important for a long time, but nobody cared less about it until artificial intelligence surfaced

AI and the obvious connection between data governance and AI has increased the political interest, which is really my concern here

Summary

Both speakers acknowledged that while data governance was always important, AI development has finally brought the necessary political attention and urgency to these issues

Topics

Legal and regulatory

International coordination is necessary beyond national frameworks

Speakers

– Steve Macfeely
– Claire Melamed

Arguments

National data sovereignty is a fallacy since most data goes to the cloud with no control over where it goes

Global Digital Compact provides unique opportunity for sustained, coordinated global agreement on data governance

Summary

Both speakers agreed that national data governance frameworks alone are insufficient and that international coordination and agreements are essential

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Data has human dimensions that must be protected

Speakers

– Steve Macfeely
– Friederike Schuur
– Francesca Bosco

Arguments

Our data are essentially who we are. There’s a phrase now, we are our data

Data governance must balance innovation and economic benefits with protecting rights of people, including children

Cyberattacks on data have human consequences, affecting real people and causing double victimization of beneficiaries

Summary

All three speakers emphasized that data governance is not just a technical or economic issue but fundamentally about protecting people and their rights

Topics

Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need to address power imbalances and build capacity so that affected communities can meaningfully participate in data governance discussions

Speakers

– Friederike Schuur
– Francesca Bosco

Arguments

Capacity development for empowerment of organizations and citizens is critical for participation in governance conversations

Asymmetries of power and protection exist, with most affected actors excluded from governance conversations

Topics

Development | Human rights

Both speakers warned about the unprecedented scale of data extraction enabled by AI systems and the risks this poses to privacy and trust

Speakers

– Friederike Schuur
– Francesca Bosco

Arguments

AI opens door to pervasive data extraction far exceeding anything seen before, threatening trust

AI systems trained on enormous datasets scraped without consent create challenges of opacity, bias, and security risks

Topics

Human rights | Privacy and data protection

Both speakers noted that AI bias and governance problems are not just due to technical limitations but result from deliberate choices and lack of foundational frameworks

Speakers

– Steve Macfeely
– Francesca Bosco

Arguments

Digital divide creates data divide, but representativity issues also result from choices made by AI modelers

Organizations focus on AI policies while lacking basic responsible data governance frameworks

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

AI industry’s self-interest in data governance

Speakers

– Claire Melamed
– Steve Macfeely

Arguments

AI companies have strong interest in getting data governance right since poor data practices lead to bad AI

AI has raised political interest in data governance, but data governance is a prerequisite to AI governance

Explanation

It was unexpected to see consensus that AI companies themselves have strong incentives for good data governance, creating potential alignment between industry interests and governance advocates rather than opposition

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Smaller datasets can deliver valuable AI services

Speakers

– Friederike Schuur

Arguments

Delivering valuable AI services doesn’t require very large datasets

Explanation

This challenges the common assumption that effective AI requires massive datasets, suggesting more sustainable and equitable approaches to AI development are possible

Topics

Development | Sustainable development

Social contract approach to data governance

Speakers

– Claire Melamed

Arguments

Data governance should establish social contract basis for trading individual autonomy for collective benefits

Explanation

The framing of data governance as a social contract similar to other areas of governance was an unexpected but compelling way to think about balancing individual rights with collective benefits

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on fundamental principles: equity of access as the core challenge, data governance as prerequisite to AI governance, need for international coordination, and the human dimensions of data protection. They agreed on both the problems (power imbalances, AI hype overshadowing data governance basics) and solutions (capacity building, rights-based approaches, multi-stakeholder processes).

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary expertise rather than conflicting viewpoints. This strong agreement among diverse stakeholders (statisticians, civil society, international organizations) suggests a mature understanding of data governance challenges and creates a solid foundation for policy development and implementation through initiatives like the Global Digital Compact.

Different viewpoints

Causes of AI bias and representativity issues

Speakers

– Steve Macfeely
– Audience member (academic)

Arguments

Digital divide creates data divide, but representativity issues also result from choices made by AI modelers

Under-investment in AI and data systems in areas like the African continent, with communities needing data collection for AI systems to work without harm

Summary

Macfeely argues that AI bias isn’t just due to lack of data availability but deliberate choices by AI modelers, while the audience member emphasizes structural under-investment and lack of representation in datasets as the primary issue

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected differences

Scope of data requirements for effective AI

Speakers

– Friederike Schuur
– Audience member (academic)

Arguments

Delivering valuable AI services doesn’t require very large datasets

Communities need data collection for AI systems to work without harm, particularly in under-invested areas

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are concerned with equity and inclusion, yet they have opposing views on whether large datasets are necessary for effective AI. Schuur argues for efficiency with smaller datasets, while the academic argues that more data collection is needed for underrepresented communities

Topics

Development | Sustainable development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers showed remarkable consensus on fundamental principles while differing mainly on implementation approaches and emphasis. Key areas of alignment included the need for international data governance, the importance of equity and human rights, and the recognition that AI has elevated the urgency of data governance issues

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high strategic alignment. The disagreements were primarily about methods and emphasis rather than fundamental goals, which suggests a strong foundation for collaborative action. The main tension appears to be between different approaches to achieving equity – whether through technical efficiency, regulatory frameworks, or increased representation – rather than disagreement about the importance of equity itself

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need to address power imbalances and build capacity so that affected communities can meaningfully participate in data governance discussions

Speakers

– Friederike Schuur
– Francesca Bosco

Arguments

Capacity development for empowerment of organizations and citizens is critical for participation in governance conversations

Asymmetries of power and protection exist, with most affected actors excluded from governance conversations

Topics

Development | Human rights

Both speakers warned about the unprecedented scale of data extraction enabled by AI systems and the risks this poses to privacy and trust

Speakers

– Friederike Schuur
– Francesca Bosco

Arguments

AI opens door to pervasive data extraction far exceeding anything seen before, threatening trust

AI systems trained on enormous datasets scraped without consent create challenges of opacity, bias, and security risks

Topics

Human rights | Privacy and data protection

Both speakers noted that AI bias and governance problems are not just due to technical limitations but result from deliberate choices and lack of foundational frameworks

Speakers

– Steve Macfeely
– Francesca Bosco

Arguments

Digital divide creates data divide, but representativity issues also result from choices made by AI modelers

Organizations focus on AI policies while lacking basic responsible data governance frameworks

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

International data governance is essential because national data sovereignty is largely illusory – most data flows to the cloud beyond national control, requiring global frameworks for safe data exchange between different digital sovereignty models

The Global Digital Compact provides a unique opportunity through its multi-stakeholder working group to create sustained, coordinated global agreements on data governance that can complement rather than replace national frameworks

Data governance must be human rights-based and child-centric, ensuring privacy, dignity, autonomy, and meaningful participation of children and young people in shaping governance frameworks

Cybersecurity and data governance are inseparable – cybersecurity acts as the enforcement mechanism for data governance policies, while governance without security cannot protect rights

Equity of access to data and its benefits is the core challenge, as data commodification creates ownership issues and power asymmetries that exclude affected communities from governance conversations

AI has elevated data governance politically but also created new pressures – data governance is a prerequisite to AI governance, not an afterthought, and poor data practices inevitably lead to problematic AI systems

There is a fundamental gap between AI adoption enthusiasm and basic data governance implementation, with organizations rushing to develop AI policies while lacking foundational responsible data frameworks

Resolutions and action items

Continue development of the UN multi-stakeholder working group on data governance established through the Global Digital Compact

Develop and implement security-by-design approaches that embed cybersecurity into data governance frameworks from the ground up

Create capacity building programs to empower organizations and citizens to participate meaningfully in data governance conversations

Establish need-first rather than AI-first approaches in organizations, with regular capacity building and framework updates

Ensure meaningful participation of children and young people in data governance processes, building on successful models like the UN World Data Forum youth delegation

Unresolved issues

How to balance individual agency over personal data with the practical reality that even experts don’t fully understand how data can be used

How to address the fundamental tension between trading convenience for data while maintaining meaningful consent and control

How to ensure equitable AI development and data collection in underrepresented communities, particularly in Africa and rural areas, without perpetuating extractive practices

How to establish fair business models and commercial parameters that ensure equitable distribution of benefits from data use

How to bridge the gap between the three digital kingdoms (individual, state, and commercial sovereignty) with their different ideological approaches to data

How to address the environmental impact of data centers and excessive data storage while maintaining AI system effectiveness

How to create enforceable international agreements when data governance frameworks are predominantly shaped by technologically advanced economies

Suggested compromises

Accept that some trade-off between individual autonomy and collective benefits is necessary, similar to other social contracts, but establish clear frameworks for consent and benefit-sharing

Recognize that delivering valuable AI services doesn’t require very large datasets, allowing for more sustainable and equitable approaches

Start with agreed-upon principles as a foundation for international data governance, then work toward more detailed implementation mechanisms

Develop contextual sensitivity in data protection that prioritizes high-risk data and high-risk actors rather than applying uniform approaches

Create frameworks that complement rather than replace national data governance systems, providing the international layer needed for cross-border data flows

Most of our data are going straight to the cloud, and after that we have no idea where those data are going… very few countries control the data in their country… our data are essentially who we are. There’s a phrase now, we are our data.

Speaker

Steve Macfeely

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenged the notion of national data sovereignty by exposing it as potentially illusory. It reframed data from a technical resource to an extension of human identity, elevating the stakes of the governance discussion from economic to existential.

Impact

This set the foundational tone for the entire discussion, establishing that data governance isn’t just about policy but about protecting human essence. It influenced subsequent speakers to adopt a more human-centered approach, with Friederike emphasizing children’s rights and Francesca discussing real human impacts of cyberattacks.

Think about educational platforms in the classrooms that record everything that a child makes. Now we have to make sure that that is not going to slot them into a particular development path because of something that they have done at one point. Childhood really means you get a second, a third, a fourth, a fifth, and so many chances because you deserve it.

Speaker

Friederike Schuur

Reason

This comment introduced a profound temporal dimension to data governance – the idea that data persistence can violate the fundamental nature of childhood development. It highlighted how AI systems could inadvertently create permanent consequences from temporary childhood behaviors.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from abstract principles to concrete, emotionally resonant scenarios. It influenced the discussion toward considering vulnerable populations and introduced the concept that data governance must account for human development over time, not just static privacy rights.

Data governance without cybersecurity is like a constitution without a judiciary… it might outline rights and responsibilities, but it cannot enforce or protect them.

Speaker

Francesca Bosco

Reason

This analogy brilliantly illustrated the interdependence of governance frameworks and enforcement mechanisms. It moved beyond viewing cybersecurity as a technical add-on to positioning it as fundamental to the entire governance structure.

Impact

This comment integrated cybersecurity into the core governance discussion rather than treating it as a separate technical concern. It influenced the conversation to consider implementation and enforcement as integral to governance design, not afterthoughts.

We have to thank AI that we’re having this conversation. Data governance has been important for a long time, but nobody cared less about it until artificial intelligence surfaced… that’s an unfortunate inconvenient truth.

Speaker

Steve Macfeely

Reason

This meta-observation about the discussion itself was remarkably candid, acknowledging that data governance only gained political traction through AI hype rather than its inherent importance. It revealed the political dynamics driving policy attention.

Impact

This comment provided crucial context for understanding why data governance is suddenly urgent and influenced the discussion toward recognizing both the opportunity and challenge of riding AI’s coattails to achieve better data governance.

Trade convenience for data – I thought this is a very important point because it relates to our behavior… employees are using their own account of ChatGPT without an institutional and corporate account to upload corporate documents… without being aware that this behavior is very risky.

Speaker

Audience member from Brazil

Reason

This comment grounded the abstract governance discussion in immediate, relatable behavior that everyone in the room likely recognized. It highlighted the gap between governance frameworks and actual human behavior driven by convenience.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from high-level policy to practical implementation challenges. It influenced subsequent responses to acknowledge that governance must account for human psychology and convenience-seeking behavior, not just create perfect frameworks.

What we want… is an environment like we have in every other area, that’s the basis of having a functioning, choosing to live together in a society… you trade off certain individual autonomy against the benefits that you get… data is no different… what is the basis of that social contract essentially.

Speaker

Claire Melamed

Reason

This comment reframed the entire data governance challenge as a fundamental question of social contract theory, connecting it to centuries of political philosophy about balancing individual rights with collective benefits.

Impact

This provided a unifying framework for understanding all the various tensions discussed – between convenience and privacy, individual and collective benefits, national and international governance. It elevated the discussion from technical policy to fundamental questions of how societies organize themselves.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a technical policy discussion into a profound exploration of human identity, social contracts, and the fundamental challenges of governing in a digital age. The most impactful comments consistently brought abstract concepts down to human-scale consequences – from children’s development being constrained by educational data to employees unconsciously trading corporate security for convenience. The discussion evolved from initial framings of technical governance challenges to deeper questions about how societies balance individual autonomy with collective benefits, how we protect human development and dignity in data systems, and how we create enforceable frameworks rather than just aspirational principles. The candid acknowledgment that data governance only gained attention through AI hype added crucial political realism to the conversation, while the social contract framing provided a unifying lens for understanding the various tensions and trade-offs discussed throughout.

How do we exchange data safely between the three digital kingdoms (individual sovereignty, state sovereignty, and commercial sovereignty) given their different ideologies?

Speaker

Steve Macfeely

Explanation

This addresses a fundamental challenge in international data governance where different jurisdictions have conflicting approaches to data control and exchange

How can we set up business models and rules around data ownership to ensure benefits are spread in an equitable way?

Speaker

Claire Melamed

Explanation

This explores the economic dimensions of data governance that are often overlooked in discussions focused primarily on rights and technical aspects

How can we ensure that educational platforms recording children’s data don’t slot them into particular development paths based on early mistakes?

Speaker

Friederike Schuur

Explanation

This addresses the long-term implications of data collection on children’s development and the right to make mistakes without permanent consequences

How might agentic AI affect the socio-affective development of children as their environment keeps reacting to them?

Speaker

Friederike Schuur

Explanation

This explores the psychological and developmental impacts of AI systems that continuously respond to and learn from children’s behavior

How do we address the asymmetries of power, agency, and protection in data governance when frameworks are disproportionately shaped by actors in technologically advanced economies?

Speaker

Francesca Bosco

Explanation

This highlights the need to include affected communities in governance conversations and address global inequities in data governance influence

How can international law and data governance evolve to keep pace with the changing threat landscape?

Speaker

Francesca Bosco

Explanation

This addresses the gap between rapidly evolving cybersecurity threats and the slower pace of legal and policy development

What is the role of the consumer/end-user in data governance, and how much agency can we give them regarding their own data when even experts don’t know how data can be used?

Speaker

Audience member from Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Explanation

This explores the balance between individual agency and institutional governance in data protection

How do we address the behavior of trading convenience for data, particularly in organizational settings where employees use personal AI accounts for work without understanding the risks?

Speaker

Audience member from Brazil

Explanation

This addresses practical challenges in implementing responsible AI use within organizations and the need for better awareness and policies

How do we square the circle between wanting global AI adoption while needing to collect data from underrepresented communities to make AI systems work without harming them?

Speaker

Academic audience member

Explanation

This addresses the tension between inclusive AI development and the data collection requirements that may exploit already marginalized communities

What are the UN’s thoughts on data donation as a solution to both privacy issues and environmental problems caused by data centers?

Speaker

Assistant professor from KAIST

Explanation

This explores alternative models for data sharing that could address multiple challenges simultaneously

How can we develop AI services that deliver value without requiring very large datasets, particularly to serve global populations more equitably and sustainably?

Speaker

Friederike Schuur

Explanation

This explores more efficient and equitable approaches to AI development that don’t rely on massive data collection

Summary

This discussion focused on embedding human rights principles in AI standards, moving from theoretical frameworks to practical implementation. The session was organized by the Freedom Online Coalition, ITU, and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, bringing together experts from standards organizations, human rights bodies, and research institutions.

Tomas Lamanauskas from ITU emphasized the critical role of technical standards in regulating technology use and protecting human rights, noting that ITU has developed over 400 AI-related standards with increasing recognition of human rights principles. He highlighted the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and transparency in standards development processes.

Peggy Hicks from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights outlined numerous urgent human rights risks posed by AI across sectors including healthcare, education, justice administration, and border control. She advocated for integrating human rights due diligence into standardization processes through a four-step approach: identifying risks, integrating findings into development processes, tracking effectiveness, and communicating how impacts are addressed.

Karen McCabe from IEEE described her organization’s extensive work on AI ethics through their 7000 series standards addressing bias, privacy, and transparency. She acknowledged challenges in translating broad human rights principles into measurable engineering requirements and emphasized the need for education and mentorship to bridge technical and human rights communities.

Caitlin Kraft-Buchman presented practical tools including a human rights AI benchmark for evaluating large language models and highlighted how diversity in standards development leads to more robust outcomes for everyone. The discussion concluded with recognition that successful integration of human rights in AI standards requires both inclusive processes involving civil society and Global South representation, as well as substantive focus on standards that will actually be adopted and implemented by industry.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Embedding human rights principles into AI standards development processes**: The discussion focused on how standards development organizations (SDOs) like ITU, IEEE, ISO, and IEC can integrate human rights considerations into their technical standards creation, moving beyond viewing standards as purely technical to recognizing their regulatory impact on how rights are exercised.

– **Urgent human rights risks posed by AI systems**: Speakers identified critical areas where AI threatens human rights, including privacy violations in health and education, bias in administration of justice, surveillance technologies, and discrimination in employment and social services, emphasizing the need for proactive risk assessment and management.

– **Practical implementation challenges and solutions**: The conversation addressed real-world obstacles in bridging human rights expertise with technical communities, including terminology barriers, consensus-building difficulties across diverse stakeholders, and the need for education programs to help technical experts understand human rights principles and vice versa.

– **Multi-stakeholder participation and inclusivity in standards development**: Panelists emphasized the importance of meaningful engagement from civil society organizations, Global South representation, and diverse voices in standards processes, while acknowledging barriers like resource constraints and skills gaps that limit participation.

– **Concrete tools and frameworks for evaluation**: Discussion included specific initiatives like human rights due diligence processes, AI benchmarking tools for evaluating systems through a rights-based lens, and certification programs that integrate human rights considerations into AI development lifecycles.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore practical pathways for integrating human rights principles into AI standards development, moving from high-level policy commitments (like those in the Global Digital Compact) to concrete implementation strategies that can guide how AI systems are designed, deployed, and governed to protect human dignity and rights.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was collaborative and constructive throughout, with speakers demonstrating mutual respect and shared commitment to the cause. The discussion maintained a professional, solution-oriented atmosphere, with participants acknowledging challenges while remaining optimistic about progress. There was a sense of urgency about the importance of the work, but also patience in recognizing the complexity of bridging technical and human rights communities. The tone remained consistently forward-looking, focusing on practical next steps rather than dwelling on problems.

Speakers

– **Ernst Noorman** – Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands, Session Moderator

– **Tomas Lamanauskas** – Deputy Secretary General of the ITU (International Telecommunication Union)

– **Peggy Hicks** – Director of Thematic Engagement at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

– **Karen McCabe** – Senior Director of Technology Policy at IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)

– **Caitlin Kraft Buchman** – CEO and Founder of Women at the Table

– **Florian Ostmann** – Director of AI Governance and Regulatory Innovation at the Alan Turing Institute

– **Matthias Kloth** – Head of Digital Governance of the Council of Europe

– **Audience** – Various audience members asking questions (roles/titles not specified)

Additional speakers:

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

# Embedding Human Rights Principles in AI Standards: From Theory to Practice

## Executive Summary

This side event at the WSIS Forum, organized by the Freedom Online Coalition, ITU, and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, brought together experts to discuss practical strategies for embedding human rights principles in AI standards development. The 45-minute session featured representatives from major standards organizations, UN agencies, civil society, and research institutions who shared concrete examples of ongoing work and identified key challenges in bridging technical and human rights communities.

The discussion built on the Freedom Online Coalition’s 2024 joint statement and the Global Digital Compact’s emphasis on human rights-respecting AI development. Speakers presented practical tools and initiatives already underway, including IEEE’s 7000 series standards, ITU’s capacity building programs, and new human rights benchmarks for evaluating AI systems. The conversation highlighted both the progress being made and the significant challenges that remain in translating human rights principles into technical requirements.

## Key Participants and Contributions

**Ernst Noorman**, Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands, moderated the session and provided context about the Freedom Online Coalition’s 2024 joint statement calling for human rights principles to be embedded in AI standards. He emphasized the need to move from high-level commitments to practical implementation.

**Tomas Lamanauskas** from ITU highlighted that the organization has developed over 400 AI-related standards and noted the recent Human Rights Council resolution adopted by consensus on July 7th. He emphasized that “technical standards actually end up regulating how we use technology and what is technology,” making them crucial for human rights protection. He described ITU’s collaboration with OHCHR and announced capacity building courses with human rights modules for standards committees.

**Peggy Hicks** from OHCHR outlined how AI systems pose risks to human rights across various sectors and described the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights framework. She explained that OHCHR has developed a four-step human rights due diligence process for standards organizations and emphasized the importance of engaging with technology developers early in the process.

**Karen McCabe** from IEEE described their extensive work on AI ethics through the 7000 series standards addressing bias, privacy, and transparency. She highlighted IEEE’s “Ethically Aligned Design” framework and noted that Vienna has adopted it as part of their digital humanism strategy. She acknowledged the practical challenges of “translating broad human rights principles into measurable engineering requirements” and building consensus across diverse stakeholders.

**Caitlin Kraft-Buchman** from Women at the Table presented their work developing human rights benchmarks for large language models, testing five models across five rights areas. She used analogies about fighter jet cockpit design and suitcase wheels to illustrate how designing for diversity benefits everyone, arguing against the notion of technological neutrality.

**Florian Ostmann** from the Alan Turing Institute noted that their database contains over 250 AI standards currently under development, highlighting the complexity of the standards landscape. In his brief closing remarks, he emphasized the need for strategic thinking about which standards will actually be adopted and implemented.

**Matthias Kloth** from the Council of Europe raised questions about cross-cultural communication between human rights and technical communities, asking how to ensure mutual understanding across these different professional worlds.

## Major Discussion Areas

### Technical Standards as Regulatory Instruments

A key theme was recognizing that technical standards are not neutral documents but rather regulatory mechanisms that shape how AI systems are designed and deployed. Lamanauskas emphasized that standards “regulate how we use technology” and determine “how our rights are exercised.” This perspective was echoed by other speakers who argued for proactive human rights integration rather than reactive responses to AI-related harms.

### Practical Tools and Initiatives

Speakers presented several concrete examples of work already underway:

– **IEEE’s 7000 Series**: McCabe described over 100 standards in development addressing bias, privacy, and transparency, built on their “Ethically Aligned Design” framework

– **ITU’s Capacity Building**: Lamanauskas announced new courses with human rights modules for all standards committees

– **Human Rights Benchmarks**: Kraft-Buchman presented their evaluation of large language models across privacy, due process, non-discrimination, social protection, and health rights

– **OHCHR Framework**: Hicks outlined their four-step due diligence process for standards organizations

### Implementation Challenges

The discussion identified several key obstacles:

– **Translation Difficulties**: McCabe noted the challenge of converting broad human rights principles into specific technical requirements

– **Consensus Building**: The difficulty of achieving agreement across diverse stakeholders with different interpretations of human rights principles

– **Early Engagement**: The challenge of reaching scientists and developers at the inception stage of technology development

– **Resource Constraints**: Barriers preventing civil society organizations from meaningfully participating in technical standards processes

– **Communication Gaps**: The need for shared vocabulary and understanding between technical and human rights communities

### Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

All speakers emphasized the importance of bringing together diverse perspectives in standards development. McCabe described IEEE’s open working group processes, while Lamanauskas highlighted ITU’s collaboration with OHCHR and the Freedom Online Coalition. The discussion revealed ongoing efforts to create more inclusive participation mechanisms.

## Audience Engagement

The session included questions from the audience, including:

– A question about just transition considerations for workers displaced by AI, which Hicks addressed by referencing OHCHR’s engagement with corporations on socioeconomic impacts

– Mark Janowski’s observation that the human rights community may be arriving too late in the technology development process, emphasizing the need for earlier engagement with scientists

## Key Challenges and Future Directions

The discussion identified several areas requiring continued attention:

1. **Capacity Building**: Need for sustained education programs to help technical experts understand human rights principles and help human rights professionals engage with technical processes

2. **Resource Allocation**: Addressing funding and skills gaps that prevent meaningful civil society participation in standards development

3. **Strategic Focus**: Determining how to prioritize efforts across the vast landscape of AI standards development

4. **Early Engagement**: Developing mechanisms to reach technology developers at the inception stage of AI system design

5. **Practical Implementation**: Continuing to develop concrete tools and methodologies that can bridge the gap between human rights principles and technical requirements

## Ongoing Initiatives

Several collaborative efforts were highlighted:

– ITU’s approved work plan with OHCHR through the Telecommunication Standardisation Advisory Group

– Development of an AI standards exchange as recommended in the Global Digital Compact

– Continued expansion of IEEE’s ethics-focused standards

– Women at the Table’s ongoing benchmark development for AI systems

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated significant momentum in embedding human rights principles in AI standards development, with concrete examples of tools and initiatives already underway. While challenges remain in bridging technical and human rights communities, the collaborative approach and practical focus suggest genuine progress toward ensuring AI systems respect fundamental human rights. The discussion highlighted the need for continued investment in capacity building, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the development of practical implementation tools.

The conversation successfully moved beyond theoretical frameworks to examine real-world applications and challenges, providing a foundation for continued work in this critical area. The involvement of major standards organizations, UN agencies, and civil society groups demonstrates the multi-stakeholder commitment necessary for effective human rights integration in AI governance.

Ernst Noorman: Excellent to see such a full room, much better than this enormous room which people spread around and have you near us at the table. We have a very, I think, interesting subject on embedding human rights in AI standards from principles to practice. It’s organized by the Freedom Online Coalition together with the ITU and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. My name is Ernst Noorman. I’m the Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands and I will be moderating this session. I have excellent speakers and panelists next to me, which I will introduce in a minute. Just introducing the topic, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence are transforming societies at an unprecedented pace. While they offer vast opportunities, they also pose risks to the enjoyment of human rights. Technical standards, as foundational elements of digital infrastructure, can either safeguard or undermine these rights depending on their design and implementation. In the Global Digital Compact, member states call on standards development organizations to collaborate in promoting the development and adoption of interoperable artificial intelligence standards that uphold safety, reliability, sustainability, and human rights. In line with this vision, the compact also recommends establishing an AI standards exchange to maintain a register of definitions and applicable standards for evaluating AI systems. Moreover, the Freedom Online Coalition in 2024 joint statement on standards urges standard development organizations and all stakeholders to embed human rights principles in the conception, design, development, and deployment of technical standards. Thus, this side event will explore how such standards and tools can be developed to uphold human dignity, equality, privacy, and non-discrimination throughout the AI lifecycle. Now, we start off with some opening remarks by Tomas, and then we will have a panel of three speakers. Peggy Hicks, sitting just behind Tomas, Director of Thematic Engagement at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Then, Karen McCabe, she is the Senior Director of Technology Policy at IEEE. I just asked, you know, what is the meaning already of the IEEE? She said, well, we don’t want to use it anymore, but for your knowledge, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, but that’s an abbreviation without the dots anymore. And then Caitlin Kraft-Buchman, CEO and Founder of Women at the Table. And to the left of me, Florian Ostmannn, Director of AI Governance and Regulatory Innovation at the Alan Turing Institute, will present closing remarks. But first, we start with Tomas Lamanaskas, Deputy Secretary of the, Secretary General of the ITU. And really happy to have you next to me, Tomas.

Tomas Lamanauskas: Thank you, Ernst and Ambassador Norman. Indeed, it’s a pleasure to be with you here today. And especially, you know, being side by side with our friends from Human Rights, High Commissioners of Human Rights Office. Thank you, Peggy, you know, for great collaboration. I think this event today is an example how, indeed, ITU, the UN Digital Agency, collaborates with the UN Human Rights Agency, you know. And in a way, also, with the members, its strong support and leadership, including through the Freedom of Land Coalition, we were able to be chaired by the Netherlands in the last period, indeed. And, indeed, this session has become, like, rather traditional in the WSIS Forum context. You know, I think we’ve now been having, you know, I remember last year, I think the year before, where we kind of really start looking into how to really make the digital technologies work. embed human rights perspective. And indeed, when we see here, and I think this is also very important, that is, we see these two events happening side by side, which is a formal high-level event for PLOS20 and AI for Good, which is exploring AI governance. And that’s important, it’s exploring AI governance, because the summit started as a solution summit, you know, how do AI, how can AI just simply benefit people, but now we realized without the governance, it’s very difficult to achieve. And today is also very important for us as AI Governance Day in this regard. So indeed, it’s in that any governance in AI needs to serve the humanity, and in serving humanity through the established frameworks, including human rights frameworks. And indeed, we have had, you know, long-standing collaboration with the Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights now, so at least, you know, I mean, given additional impetus in 2021, with the additional Human Rights Council resolution on the human rights and emerging technologies and standards that really govern that framework, how standard organizations should collaborate and should work together. And indeed, this is also embedded in this clear understanding that technical standards actually end up regulating how we use technology and what is technology. So they are not, even though we sometimes say this is a technical issue, these technical issues actually very well determine how our rights are exercised, because also, and standards can also, from the positive side, you know, allow us to translate, you know, principles and high-level freedoms into actual implementation through the technology. And I think this here is also something that is seen as a guardrail, you know, in this guardrail, but at the same time is also, I would argue, it’s also encouragement of use, because, you know, for people to use artificial intelligence, and we have that in different powers, they need to trust it, they need to have a confidence in it, they need to know that the artificial intelligence they will use will not be biased against them, will not reject the job, you know, from the basic things, like not rejecting to job duplication or, you know, not using their image for misinformation and abuse and to other much more fundamental aspects of human rights as well, but I think it’s really important. So at you, of course, being also the AI agency, sorry, being UN Digital Agency, it’s also a standard development organization. And as a standard development organization, we have a suite of standards now, in terms of AI, more than 400 standards. And of course, and then we have our member states already starting to embed in the standard development process principles that human rights are important. So there is an importance of, so a number of resolutions that were adopted in our last World Conclusion Association Assembly, 24 in New Delhi, that governs us, is actually embedded in already human rights concepts already in some specific resolutions from VETAverse and some others, just showing recognition. And that’s actually, it seems like a small things, but here in the world, these recognitions are the big thing, because they really show that the consensus is emerging. So again, it’s not, this important is an important topic, even I was double-checking my facts with Peggy, but I think July 7th now, the Human Rights Council just adopted a new resolution on human rights and emerging technologies. So again, this shows that, and this is adopted, I think, importantly, by consensus. I think, and that you are used to consensus, and I think Human Rights Council likes to vote, but I think on this one, it was really adopted by consensus and shows that it’s really member states are coming together around that. I think it’s also important, it’s not only about the intergovernmental cooperation, it’s actually opposite, it’s actually including different stakeholders here, and we have, of course, IEEE here at the table, but in our work, we have Alan Turing Institute that will also work in different contexts, women at the table, but also different organizations, such as Article 19, and are operated like some vendors, like Mark Erickson, are strongly involved in this work, and I think it’s very important that we deliver. Now, in terms of a two specific aspects, well, of course, we’re trying to increase transparency of our standards to allow also everyone to judge and see whether these standards apply with the human rights perspectives. We’re also looking into capacity building courses throughout your academy to enhance human rights literacy among A2 members. And then, in response to what is called in our technical term T-SAG, which is basically the body that governs our standard development work in between the assemblies, we are actually also doing a number of steps to make sure that those experts who come to our meetings or lead civilization work are aware of human rights perspectives. We did a survey of study group leadership. We’re doing a comparative survey of peer standard development organization practices. We raise awareness, including events like that, through everyone. And we also, you know, build capacity, as I mentioned. What’s important for us, too, is not doing that alone. First of all, our close circle of friends in the World Standards Corporation, ISO, and IEC, with whom we work very closely together, and human rights as being one of the key, you know, I would say one of the three key pillars of our collaboration, next to artificial intelligence and green technologies, and indeed shows the importance we place to that. So, indeed, I think it’s very important that we continue working in this spirit together, I think, because this is important work to make sure that, I think as some people are saying here, that the AI and new digital technologies serves humanity, not the other way around. And it’s really AI for good and digital technologies for good. So, thank you very much. And I have to apologize. I’ll have to leave. But that’s not a reflection of how important human rights is. It’s just a reflection of how busy the city is this week. So, thank you, my friends, and over to you. Thank you.

Ernst Noorman: I really thank you, Thomas, for taking the time to join us at this panel, and it shows also the importance you attach to this subject on human rights. Thank you. Applause for Thomas. Much better. Then we continue with the questions to the panel. First, I’ll start with you, Peggy. From your perspective, what are the most urgent human rights risks posed by AI that technical standards must address? and maybe you can also share some concrete ways in which human rights due diligence can meaningfully be integrated into the standardization process. Let me ask the easy questions.

Peggy Hicks: So no, we’ve got plenty to talk about. It’s so great to see so many faces in the room of our core partners within this work and obviously we still have ITU present so I can thank you for the Tomas’s nice words about the close collaboration that we’ve had on these issues which has really been an advance and important step forward. The Fremont Line Coalition in Netherlands as well, you know, I want to pay thanks to the work that you’ve done. The Fremont Line Coalition’s strong statement on standards and human rights published last year was really a, you know, a groundbreaking moment I think because we’ve seen such a gap really between the human rights side and the standard setting side and to see those pieces come together in the Fremont Line Coalition was really encouraging. We’ve been working, as I said, with ITU quite substantially in these areas and we’re developing a work plan on technical standards and human rights that was approved by the TSAG a few weeks ago but I think it’s also the case and very glad to be here with another standard development organization, IEEE, ISO and IEC. We’ve really expanded our work in this area. I think ITU has helped to open the door, help us to understand and engage with the standards community more easily and it’s an area where things have really been moving in a positive way but turning to your question about what are some of the most urgent risks, it’s like asking me to, you know, identify, you know, between my various children. There are so many risks and so little time. The reality is we’ve done lots of work sort of mapping out some of these risks. We’ve got the mapping report that we did for the Human Rights Council recently that shows all the work that’s been done by the Geneva machinery on some of these issues. And we’ve also done a lot of work on some specific areas. We’ve looked at risk with AI systems in the area of economic, social, and cultural rights. So privacy issues regarding AI technology in health and education, for example. We just did a report recently about risk in administration of justice and sort of the rollout of AI without some of the guardrails that we need in that space. We’re just doing work now on digital border technologies and use of AI in that space. And those are really just indicative of some of the areas in which we’re looking at it. I think it’s fair to say that AI is infusing all of the different areas of human rights engagement and therefore we see some risks in those spaces and also in many cases, some opportunities as well. We’ve been working within our BTEC project, which works with the business and human rights side of this with some of the major players in this space. And in that context, we did a whole taxonomy of how we line up generative AI and sort of the universal declaration and what are the different risks within it. So I encourage people to look for that on our website. And of course, the special procedures and treaty bodies have also been very engaged in this space. So there’s no shortage of risks. And in some cases, those need to be managed and understood and technical standards developed around them. There’s also technology that until those things are in place, we shouldn’t have it on the market. And we’ve talked about that in the context of surveillance and other technologies that we’ve seen those risks really emerging quite significantly. But obviously we’re here today because we know that technical standards can play a really important role. As Thomas has said, and as you introduced, we can really move forward in terms of what we all wanna see, which is human rights being integrated in these conversations and technology that actually delivers for people in the way that it’s intended to do so. So that requires, as we saw in the GDC, states and standard setting organizations putting human rights front and center and really ensuring that the processes depend on the important principles we have around multi-stakeholder principles and that they are transparent, open, and inclusive going forward. So we’re, in terms of the types of ways we want technical standards to address the risks AI poses, we’re looking at the process and management side where we want concrete steps to enhance transparency and multi-stakeholder participation. That’s a key element. Transparency is also, you know, in all of these conversations, we need to know from states and business about the kinds of systems they use that we can engage on it. And we’re also really looking at how we look at the terms and concepts and terminology for AI and issues like explainability. But quickly, because I want to hear the other speakers as well, on the human rights due diligence side, which I think is one of the things we can really bring into it, what is that framework for assessing risks and proactively managing them and looking at them in a technical standard setting context? We’re really looking for standards development organizations to really adopt some of what we’ve learned through human rights due diligence processes in order to identify and mitigate risks going forward. And there’s sort of a four-step process there. They can use this to identify and assess human rights risks. They can integrate those findings into standard development organization processes. And then we ask them to take it the next step. They need to track the effectiveness of what they what’s being done and then also communicate how the impacts are being addressed. So it’s a it’s a life cycle approach to really engaging in human rights due diligence and then really making sure that it has the impact we want it to. And the key element there is also ensuring meaningful engagement of the stakeholders that really will have the most direct information about what’s happening. Our office has developed guidance on human rights judelogy for use in the UN system, which we hope we’re working with our UN partners to roll out and implement, and we hope will be relevant and useful to other actors in the space as well. And we’re really looking forward to just deepening our work with the standard-setting community as we go forward on this. And we’re happy that it’s such an open door, and we’re hoping all of us can walk through it and deliver even better results in the coming year. Thanks.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much. Karen, IEEE is a leading global standards body with practical work at the intersection of ethics, technology and standards. How do you see the role of technical communities in addressing human rights principles with the AI standards lifecycle? Well, thank you for that question. And I know you mentioned, you know, we go by IEEE.

Karen McCabe: But before I go there, first, I want to thank the organizers for this session. It’s really a very important topic. And I know in IEEE and our standards development communities, we take this very seriously. And once I share some of the work that we’re doing, you’ll see how we’re addressing it in that way. You know, just for really briefly, for those who may not be aware of IEEE, which we are the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, but we go by IEEE because our technical scope and our breadth has really expanded over the many, many years, probably about 130 right now. So we’re dealing with so many different technical aspects. We have like 45 technical societies and councils and a lot of good work that we do. And our mission is to advance technology for the benefit of humanity. So our communities of our volunteers and the work that we do, that’s really central and focal to the to the work that we’re doing at IEEE through our education programs, through the publications that we do and how we convene around conferences. But we’re also a technical standards developer. We consider ourselves a global standards developer because our standards are used globally. They’re developed from people around the world, used around the world. Probably many of you, if you’re not familiar with us, our IEEE 802 standards for wireless technology, how all our wireless technology works is a standard that we developed. And we’ve had a great partnership with IEC, ISO, and ITU as well in collaborating and sharing of information, joint development and whatnot. So it’s really a pleasure to be here to really talk about this most important situation. We do recognize, as I mentioned here, the imperative of this, and also there’s complexity associated with it. We greatly appreciate the reports that have come out and the call for standards-developing communities to look at human rights and how they could take human rights into considerations when they’re developing standards and they’re looking at their processes in that regard. But while standards bodies and standards themselves, they really cannot per se adjudicate or enforce human rights, we do, as a technical community and a standards developer, have a critical role in creating these frameworks and these processes in the communities, raising the awareness, putting the education in, so that we can look at how we can integrate human rights principles into the designs and deployment and the governance of AI systems. And as we mentioned, other digital technologies and technologies in general, because technologies are, they’re not sort of in their silos. And when you look at AI and we look at other upcoming technologies like quantum, et cetera, it’s cross-cutting, you know, you don’t see, we see IECT technologies in the power sector and in the vehicular technology areas as well. So, it’s really critical. And I think that’s where one strength that IEEE can bring when we’re addressing this important topic is that we sort of have this very broad and deep technical community that crosses many of these disciplines that technology and other, AI, I should say, other technologies are cross-cutting with that. So again, this is, you know, very important, but it also, I think, raises some interesting considerations, I’ll say. You know, we definitely need to have this discussion and I think many standards bodies, including IEEE, are looking at this, but I’m just going to take a moment here just to talk about some of the practical considerations when we look at this. It doesn’t mean we should not be going forth with this, and we have a lot of bodies doing significant work in here, but just to put this on the table, and then we’ll talk about how we’re approaching it from our perspective. So incorporating human rights into standards can present some challenges, if you will. They could be technical, procedural, or institutional. So technically, it’s sort of difficult to translate broad human rights principles into measurable engineering requirements. Now that mindset of how we look at standards and how we define standards, because we do have a broad portfolio of sociotechnical standards, if you will, we’re looking at technical standards and how they’re interplaying with such issues as human rights and other societal impacts. But we have to look at our processes, and we have to look at the communities and educating them around these topics. Procedurally, most standards are developed by consensus-type processes. So when you’re looking at human rights principles, they could be interpreted differently among different stakeholders from different parts of the world based on how they view human rights. So that’s another factor we have to take into consideration. And then institutionally, standards bodies, we’re not necessarily courts or regulators. They’re primarily forms for voluntary consensus standards and collaboration where we bring diverse minds and specialists from all kinds of geographic regions around the world, again, to develop this standard. But I do think there is, and we’ve been seeing a trend of technical standards and standards bodies being really more sensitized and more aware of these issues. If you think about the potential unintended consequences of technology and how that can impact human rights, but well-being and growth and prosperity as well. So this is really important to us at IAAA. And that’s why we have various approaches and programs that we’ve been doing regarded to human rights. So we study the report quite closely about human rights recommendations for standards bodies as well. But prior to that, we already started and had launched many, many activities and programs that fall within, I guess one could say, sort of this human rights lens, right? So early as 2016-17, we started to look at AI very deeply and specifically at the IEEE. We launched that with what we call a body of work, ethically aligned design. So this is a body of work to really start looking at the social implications of AI systems and technologies and how they can impact humanity, you know, working, of course, under the remit that IEEE has. So we have a series of standards, which we call our 7,000 series, that are addressing these issues, bias, privacy, transparency. And that body of work grew to right now about over 100 standards that we have in this place. Some are looking at vertical applications, some are looking at horizontal applications. So just to give you a little flavor of that, we have a standard that focuses on transparency and autonomous systems, one that’s addressing data privacy processes, one that’s providing methodologies for reducing algorithmic bias. We also stood up associated with this IEEE certification program that is also looking at and addressing, it’s really kind of built more around the processes. So when you’re sort of developing these technologies and the processes around them, this type of issues of human rights and unintended consequences is not sort of an afterthought, because it’s very hard to go back and fix that. It’s out in the world. So how various industry actors or others who are developing these technologies can take these factors into deep consideration when they’re doing that. So the certification program that we have is really looking around those types of processes that we have as well. We also make sure that we, and this is something that IEEE is very good at, it’s convening, is we want to make sure that we have meaningful and inclusive, as we were talking about. It has to be meaningful. It has to be inclusive dialogue. So we facilitate an open multi-stakeholder process through our public working groups. The standards that we do are open, they’re transparent. this perspective and that some of them, many of them, have that perspective of human rights. So I think, you know, there’s sort of almost a natural progression, if you will, the more we’re kind of addressing these types of issues and standards and newer communities are coming in. I don’t want to say by default, you know, there definitely needs to be some processes, if you will, and education around it. We’re starting to hear more and more of these issues and what’s out there and why it’s so important in our working groups and in our community. Just a few more examples, you know, when I mentioned the ethically aligned design framework, when we rolled that out a few years after that, it was really the city of Vienna that used this strategy and this framework in their digital humanism work. And the work that they’re doing there is how do we protect human rights, democracy and transparency at the center of urban digital transformation. So this really provided a great framework for them. And I guess, by extension, addressing some of the human rights issues as well, when they look at those types of issues and using the framework that we have. And, you know, basically sort of in closing, this really illustrates, you know, sort of the pathways that we have built out, you know, more to come and how we can continue to build those out and how we can embed those human rights principles and technical standards, you know, that, you know, standards bodies, standards development could be very complex. There’s a lot of actors involved and different bodies and liaising agreements that have to happen with that. So it’s not just sort of sitting in the IEEE or the ITU. And, you know, that’s why the level of information and awareness about these issues and how we can not only do them in our own communities, but then by liaising and collaborating with other standards bodies and other actors, we can also help have sort of a multiplier effect, if you will, and trying to share, you know, the issues and how they should be addressed and what we can do as, you know, technical standards bodies when we’re moving forward. So with that, I know we have a bunch of other speakers, so I’ll close here, but thank you for your time. No, thank you very much, Karen. And for me, it’s quite a new world with your opening and the depth, also, you’re working, you’re working, your organization working on human rights and standards is quite impressive.

Ernst Noorman: But I’m afraid that the panel, the discussion will be only for 45 minutes. I’m already quite sure we’ll be running short on time. So let’s continue now with Caitlin with a question on your organization, Women at the Table. It’s developing a human rights AI benchmark as a concrete tool to evaluate AI through a rights-based lens. How do you envision this kind of benchmark shaping public procurement decisions, influencing regulatory frameworks, and guiding incentives that drive AI innovation?

Caitlin Kraft Buchman: Thank you for that question. So this comes out of this AI benchmark. So now we’re moving into sort of the practical application of what does all of this mean. And quite to our surprise, there is no human rights, international human rights framework benchmark for machine learning at all. So we’ve taken upon ourselves with a little bit of extra money we had left over to hire a bunch of evaluators from CERN physicists who do evaluation benchmarks. And we’ve just started this process. We’re looking at a mix of, with our limited time and finances at the moment, like five rights, a mix of civil, political, economic, social. So we’re doing privacy, due process, non-discrimination, of course, which is an umbrella, social protection, and health to look at them to see exactly how five different large language models are understanding what human rights means. And what we’re very interested in is to see also if they don’t understand it, and then this will be a paper. We’re hoping that this is for machine learning professionals. So there are a lot of ethical benchmarks that many of my colleagues here have made for themselves, but these are all guidelines and they’re all, even though this is a narrative benchmark, this is made for people who are like reading NeuroIPS papers and are actually building LLMs. So we’re hoping that they will then be able to test a lot of what their large language models understand of international human rights benchmarks. What we also understand is that there are, we’re going to move to model benchmarking approaches. So now you’re going to say, okay, I’m doing something, I’m a municipality, I want to do something about social protection. This LLM does, understands this so much better than another. And we, I saw yesterday with the World Bank that all of the IFIs, all of the different financial institutions are understanding for different products that they’re making, their different large language models that handle different things differently. So we’re going to now have to have a more nuanced, a sort of a larger approach. So we’re hoping this will create a bit of clarity. Maybe it’ll reveal how to choose wisely and see how some systems are more suitable, like for AI procurement. But I would also be remiss not to mention this notion just in our work that was a little bit earlier with the Gender Responsive Standards Initiative, which is something that we co-drafted with BSI and ECE. It’s held at the ECE Secretariat. And this notion of technology being neutral is really been sort of discredited. So what we did do using gender as a point of entry, how standards actually affect different people differently. We know IEC, when they did all their electricity things for your stove, they did lots of different experiments because young people, old people, men, women sort of conduct the electricity differently. So this is a sort of a normal practice that electricity is not actually neutral. It doesn’t behave on everybody the same way. We use often this example of the cockpits when the U.S. Congress in 1990 said women needed to become fighter pilots, whether that is good, bad, or indifferent. They realized that, of course, the cockpits were made for men of a certain size and height, the sort of default male that all standards are built for. So they didn’t say, well, we have to have 10 different sizes of cockpit for the 10 different sizes of women. They had to redesign the cockpit so that things were really adjustable and in different places. And they made much more efficient planes for that reason, because they had to build a cockpit for that kind of diversity. We also see for something like, remember, I don’t know how old all of you are, but it used to be that suitcases didn’t all have wheels on them, but it was only when women entered the workforce and all of a sudden they didn’t want to lug them and here and there they made little dainty ones. Now everybody has wheels on their suitcases because it just makes more sense. And that’s sort of how diversity. And the men are happy too. Yeah, exactly. Super, super happy. That’s what we’re saying is that a diverse population, a diverse data set, diverse experiences are going to bring something that’s really better for everybody else. This is about robustness. It’s not about just privileging one group or another. It’s really about bringing a kind of a large sort of 360 and multidimensional experience to everybody else. And on top of that, also for just in terms of being technical, we wrote for BSI, an inclusive data standard where we really do look at, I’m very proud of being the technical author of actually a standard, but really what is data, which is also, data is also received knowledge that comes from other places. That’s all that it is. And without context, without purpose, it’s kind of meaningless and we have to understand what we do with data and how we govern it for that reason. Okay.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you. Thank you very much. We have, well, 10 minutes left, but I’m definitely have to keep a reserve of time for Florian for some concluding remarks, but I can imagine there are some questions. And if you have a question, please make it a phrase with a question mark. and not a statement. Please introduce yourself and to who you address the question.

Matthias Kloth: Thank you. Good afternoon to everybody. My name is Matthias Klote. I’m the Head of Digital Governance of the Council of Europe. Our contribution to the discussion is our Framework Convention on AI and Human Rights, the first international treaty actually addressing this, which is a treaty with a global vocation. All like-minded countries around the world can join and we already have signatories from several continents. I would also briefly like to say that we actually have developed a methodology for risk and impact assessments on human rights called Huderia. We worked with the Alan Turing Institute on this. I would like to ask a question to Mrs. McNay, just because she already touched on that. How do we ensure that we cross these two worlds where we as a human rights community explain to people from a technical world about what certain notions mean and that on the other hand we understand the technical issues? I think this seems to be a challenge which is very important to overcome. Thank you. Yes, so how do we understand each other? That’s a great question because you know we all come to

Karen McCabe: the table based on our experiences and our work environment, our education, etc. I can give an example. I have a colleague sitting next to me who was involved in a lot of our work, Ms. Michael Lucan here. In the early days of our AI work, people were interested in many people, not just technologists, so it was attractive to people who were not what I would say non-traditional. They’re not traditional standards developers. They’re not necessarily coming from the technical community working in technology per se. There were ethicists, there were lawyers, there were marketing people, there were civil society organizations. So when they start to come together to form the working groups and write standards, this is very foreign to them in that regard. Just how the process works, but how you write a standard and these terms that you’re using so that when you’re defining them. You know, terminology is very fundamental to standards. So we all are starting on the same page of what we mean when we’re talking about something. And it was challenging, you know, quite frankly, of bringing these different diverse voices from their different experiences into the fold of standards development. So I think, you know, multiple things happened. You know, we had to set up some mentorship and education programs. So we brought in, you know, technical experts, if you will, more traditional standards developers and process people to help them explain that. But likewise, I think our technical experts and our process people learned a lot from the different perspectives and how from the new actors in our process of what they meant and what was meaningful and impactful and why we should be considering things and vice versa. The new actors were learning about these processes, but, you know, we really had to take a hard look at our processes as well, you know, and how we can also build out these frameworks, you know, so we had ethically aligned design and we had a framework around that, which sort of launched our standards work, that 7000 series I mentioned. And then when everyone started to come together, it’s like, well, we’re going to work within this framework. And it seems so well, we have this framework, this is so we’ll just follow the framework. And then we start putting people in a room together. You know, it was a little bumpy, you know, so we had to do a lot of communication. I know this sounds like, you know, sort of this, nothing really earth shattering here, but sometimes you lose sight of this, right, that, you know, you’re, you’re might be talking over each other, but you really don’t mean to be you’re talking the same language, but it’s different ways you define different terminology. So we had to do a lot of communication, a lot of mentoring, and education around that. So I wish there was sort of an easier answer to that question. But it’s really about, I think, a lot of communication skills, you know, quite frankly, having patience, and really identifying, you know, experts, technical experts that, you know, I would say are open minded, if you will, to those types of challenges and providing that level of guidance that can go along the way. So that’s just, you know,

Caitlin Kraft Buchman: Can I just say something, ITU is also I think now has a new set of courses where they’re going to all their standards committees are going to have a human rights module and I think that that will help things and probably all standards bodies should give that course just so people understand sort of basic human rights principles, all the things that we’ve all agreed to and I just must say for us that we do have a course that sits open, it’s free, it sits on the Sorbonne Center for AI website that is an attempt to have policymakers but also technologists have the same vocabulary when they’re making technology together.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you. Tony can take another question if we are allowed to go five minutes on until ten to, then we can one question please, brief question and a brief answer.

Audience: My question is for Peggy because you know I’m from the low carbon sector, we are talking about low carbon just transition, I think the AI sector is also need some low carbon just transition and how do you work with companies, big corporations and how because these are the organizations lay off people because of AI and how do you make sure the just transition is happening? Thank you.

Peggy Hicks: Okay, so there’s a great question and I’m on instruction to have a short answer and we actually just did a report that I’ve reviewed and will be issued shortly that’s about just transition and how we achieve it. So that’s the bottom line to my answer. But the main things I think we bring to it is making sure that we are looking at all of those risks and trying to integrate them in and bring the human rights standards to bear on that decision making.

Ernst Noorman: So we work with companies about what their responsibilities are and how they apply the UN guiding principles on business and trade. One last brief question and brief answer before I give the floor to Florian. Thank you very much, Mark Janowski, Czech Republic.

Audience: The question is, does anybody talk to the people responsible for the inception of the technologies? We’ve been talking about the cycle, which is more standard setting, and we’ve been doing quite a lot, member states, OSHR, and other NGOs. But is anybody talking, and there’s a progress, and we know about it, and also thank you. But is anybody talking to the scientists who were actually at the inception of these technologies? Because I think we were just not reaching them enough, because we’re actually late in the cycle. Thank you. Thank you.

Peggy Hicks: I’m looking to Peggy. I have a tiny answer on that. Look, it’s where are those scientists, right? And there’s a whole other conversation about the fact that many of them are in the corporations. But part of what we’re looking at is in our second phase of our Gen-AI project is answering exactly that question and trying to engage at the beginning of the cycle on development of products and tools. Okay, thank you very much for these questions. And then I give the floor to Florian for some closing remarks.

Florian Ostmann: Thank you very much, Ernst. And thank you to the organizers for the opportunity to share some concluding thoughts. So I work at the Alan Turing Institute, which is the UK’s national institute for AI, and I will be speaking from the perspective of the AI Standards Hub, which is an initiative that we launched two and a half years ago as a partnership between the Alan Turing Institute, the British Standards Institution, which is represented in the room, the UK’s national standards body, and also the National Physical Laboratory, which is the UK’s national measurement institute. And the AI Standards Hub is all about making the AI standards space more accessible and sharing information, advancing capacity building, and also doing research on what the priorities are, what gaps exist, and what is needed in the AI standards space. Thinking about the socio-technical implications, the human rights aspects of AI has been a really important component of that work over the last couple of years. We’ve been fortunate to collaborate with UNOHCHR and also with the ITU on some of this work, most recently through a summit that we organized in London in March. And so I’ll just share a couple of reflections, you know, based on the work we’ve done. I won’t go into detail on the risks, I think Peggy did a good job in, you know, talking about what are the risks, and I think we can all agree the reason why we’re all in the room is that we recognize that AI raises important human rights questions, so we can assume that as agreed. But I’ll share some reflections about, you know, what do we need in order to make sure that standards, we end up with standards that recognize human rights and integrate human rights considerations. And I think there are broadly two angles that are worth thinking about and emphasizing. The first one is sort of a question of process. And I think Karen spoke to some of this. So, you know, who needs to be involved in order to make sure that we end up with suitable standards. And then the other one is a question of substance, in terms of what do standards need to look like in order to be adequate from a human rights perspective. So I’ll say a few words on each of those dimensions. And from the process perspective, you know, I think it’s important to recognize that with the human rights expertise is held across many different groups. And we know that not all of these groups are traditionally equally represented in the standards development process. So a couple of different factors here. One is the important role of civil society organizations as a, you know, source of human rights expertise and the fact that CSOs are traditionally not very strongly represented. There is an important point around the Global South being represented. We know that, of course, proportionally the Global South is less strongly represented in international standards development processes. And then there’s also the question of individuals. Who are the people? So if an organization decides to engage, who is the person from the organization that’s representing the organization? Is that a technical expert or is it someone from the human rights to diligence team, for example, right? And in some cases, probably the answer is it should be both or they should be working together. But that’s a really important consideration, which not just thinking about the organization, but who actually, which voice from within the organization is it? So there’s important considerations around making sure that all these different voices are represented. And what’s important to recognize is that there are, of course, obstacles to getting that representation. So especially for CSOs, the first obstacle is often resourcing. Private sector companies who are in the AI business have a business case for why they should engage in standards development. For CSOs, that’s not the case. So it’s much more difficult for a CSO to justify involvement. There’s an important issue around skills. I think Karen spoke to that. It’s good to see that different organizations, ourselves and the ITU and others, the work that Caitlin mentioned, is trying to address that. So part of that is demystifying what are standards. We are sometimes trying to avoid the term technical standards because it creates this misconception that the content of standards isn’t necessarily particularly technical. Some standards are, but some of the most important standards are management standards. You don’t need to be a computer scientist to develop a good management system standard for AI. So demystifying that, making sure that people are equipped with the knowledge, also the cultural knowledge, where they feel they can make an active contribution. And I get the signal I need to wrap up. I just very briefly… Just one last consideration. So those are the process considerations. The last thing I wanted to say is on the substance. If you think about what standards are needed, it’s really important to recognize that it’s a vast field. We’ve got a database for AI standards. It’s got over 250 standards currently in there that are being developed or under development. And so which standards should we be focusing on in terms of integrating human rights? CSOs have often, we’ve done a lot of engagements, have told us from their perspective, the ideal is to have a horizontal standard, right, that addresses AI issues from a human rights perspective, because it means you engage with one standards project and you’ve covered sort of the full landscape in theory. But we also know that industry is often focused on much more narrowly focused standards that are focused on sectors or particular use cases, and the horizontal standard may not actually get used that much. And so it’s really important to think about, you know, which standards will be the ones that get adopted and how do we make sure that human rights considerations find their way into those standards. It’s not enough to just have a catalog where there is, you know, one standard that has human rights included. Thank you very much. And that’s, with that, it comes to the end of this session. I must admit that I learned a lot. I hope you did as well. And I want to invite you to give a big round of applause for our panelists and for Florian concluding the session.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you.

Agreement points

Technical standards fundamentally shape how human rights are exercised and must embed human rights principles throughout the AI lifecycle

Speakers

– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Peggy Hicks
– Karen McCabe
– Ernst Noorman

Arguments

AI governance must serve humanity through established human rights frameworks – technical standards regulate how we use technology and exercise our rights

AI poses urgent human rights risks across multiple domains including privacy, administration of justice, digital borders, and economic/social rights that technical standards must address

Technical communities have a critical role in creating frameworks and processes that integrate human rights principles into AI system design, deployment, and governance

Emerging technologies like AI are transforming societies at unprecedented pace while posing risks to human rights that technical standards can either safeguard or undermine

Summary

All speakers agree that technical standards are not neutral technical issues but fundamental determinants of how human rights are exercised in AI systems. They consensus that standards must proactively embed human rights principles from design through deployment.

Topics

Human rights | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Multi-stakeholder collaboration and institutional partnerships are essential for effective human rights integration in AI standards

Speakers

– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Peggy Hicks
– Karen McCabe
– Florian Ostmann

Arguments

ITU collaborates closely with UN Human Rights Office and Freedom Online Coalition to embed human rights perspectives in AI standards development

Human rights due diligence provides a four-step framework for standards development organizations to identify, assess, integrate, and track human rights risks

IEEE facilitates open multi-stakeholder processes through public working groups with transparent standards development involving diverse communities

Cross-sector collaboration between standards bodies, civil society, and technical communities is essential for effective human rights integration

Summary

Speakers unanimously emphasize the need for collaborative approaches involving multiple stakeholders including standards bodies, human rights organizations, civil society, and technical communities to effectively integrate human rights into AI standards.

Topics

Human rights | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Capacity building and education are crucial for bridging the gap between technical and human rights communities

Speakers

– Tomas Lamanauskas
– Karen McCabe
– Caitlin Kraft Buchman
– Florian Ostmann
– Matthias Kloth

Arguments

Enhanced transparency of standards and capacity building through academies helps increase human rights awareness among technical experts

Bridging technical and human rights communities requires communication skills, mentorship, education programs, and shared vocabulary development

Free educational courses help policymakers and technologists develop shared vocabulary for collaborative technology development

Civil society organizations face resourcing and skills obstacles in participating in standards development, requiring targeted support and demystification efforts

Bridging technical and human rights communities requires ensuring mutual understanding between experts who explain human rights concepts to technical professionals and vice versa

Summary

All speakers recognize that effective human rights integration requires deliberate capacity building efforts, education programs, and communication initiatives to help technical experts understand human rights principles and help human rights professionals understand technical processes.

Topics

Human rights | Digital standards | Capacity development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize systematic, process-oriented approaches to human rights integration that involve continuous monitoring and assessment throughout the standards development lifecycle.

Speakers

– Peggy Hicks
– Florian Ostmann

Arguments

Human rights due diligence provides a four-step framework for standards development organizations to identify, assess, integrate, and track human rights risks

Standards development requires both process considerations (who participates) and substance considerations (what standards should contain) to adequately address human rights

Topics

Human rights | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers challenge the notion of technological neutrality and emphasize the practical challenges of translating human rights principles into concrete technical implementations while ensuring diverse perspectives are included.

Speakers

– Karen McCabe
– Caitlin Kraft Buchman

Arguments

Standards must translate high-level human rights principles into measurable engineering requirements while managing consensus-building challenges

Technology is not neutral – diverse perspectives and inclusive data standards improve robustness and effectiveness for all users

Topics

Human rights | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Both recognize the importance of addressing the broader social and economic impacts of AI, particularly regarding job displacement and the need for just transition approaches that protect workers and communities.

Speakers

– Peggy Hicks
– Audience

Arguments

Engagement with corporations through UN guiding principles on business and human rights addresses just transition concerns including AI-related job displacement

AI sector needs low carbon just transition similar to other industries, with focus on how corporations handle AI-related job displacement

Topics

Human rights | Future of work | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Practical implementation challenges are acknowledged by all stakeholders without defensiveness

Speakers

– Karen McCabe
– Florian Ostmann
– Caitlin Kraft Buchman

Arguments

Standards must translate high-level human rights principles into measurable engineering requirements while managing consensus-building challenges

Civil society organizations face resourcing and skills obstacles in participating in standards development, requiring targeted support and demystification efforts

Technology is not neutral – diverse perspectives and inclusive data standards improve robustness and effectiveness for all users

Explanation

Unexpectedly, representatives from technical standards organizations openly acknowledge significant challenges in their processes and the need for fundamental changes, rather than defending current practices. This suggests genuine commitment to improvement.

Topics

Human rights | Digital standards | Capacity development

Focus on practical tools and concrete implementation rather than just principles

Speakers

– Caitlin Kraft Buchman
– Peggy Hicks
– Florian Ostmann

Arguments

Human rights AI benchmarks are needed as concrete tools to evaluate AI systems and guide procurement decisions and regulatory frameworks

Human rights due diligence provides a four-step framework for standards development organizations to identify, assess, integrate, and track human rights risks

Focus should be on standards that will actually be adopted by industry, not just horizontal standards that comprehensively cover human rights

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus on prioritizing practical implementation tools over theoretical frameworks, with even human rights advocates emphasizing the need for concrete, usable tools rather than just comprehensive principles.

Topics

Human rights | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion reveals remarkably strong consensus across all speakers on the fundamental importance of embedding human rights in AI standards, the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the critical role of capacity building. Key areas of agreement include the non-neutrality of technical standards, the necessity of systematic approaches to human rights integration, and the importance of practical implementation tools.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for the field. The agreement spans institutional representatives, technical experts, and civil society, suggesting genuine momentum for change. The consensus on practical challenges and implementation needs indicates readiness to move from principles to concrete action, which could accelerate progress in embedding human rights in AI standards development.

Different viewpoints

Approach to standards development – horizontal vs. sector-specific focus

Speakers

– Caitlin Kraft Buchman
– Florian Ostmann

Arguments

Human rights AI benchmarks are needed as concrete tools to evaluate AI systems and guide procurement decisions and regulatory frameworks

Focus should be on standards that will actually be adopted by industry, not just horizontal standards that comprehensively cover human rights

Summary

Kraft Buchman advocates for comprehensive human rights benchmarks that can evaluate AI systems across multiple rights domains, while Ostmann argues for focusing on sector-specific standards that industry will actually adopt rather than broad horizontal standards that may not be implemented

Topics

Human rights | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Timeline and urgency of engagement with technology developers

Speakers

– Peggy Hicks
– Audience

Arguments

Early engagement with scientists at technology inception stages is crucial but challenging since many work within corporations

Engagement with scientists at technology inception stage is crucial but currently insufficient, as the human rights community may be arriving too late in the development cycle

Summary

While Hicks acknowledges the challenge of early engagement and describes OHCHR’s efforts to reach scientists at inception stages, the audience member argues more forcefully that current efforts are insufficient and the human rights community is arriving too late in the development process

Topics

Human rights | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of comprehensive vs. targeted standards approaches

Speakers

– Florian Ostmann
– Caitlin Kraft Buchman

Arguments

Focus should be on standards that will actually be adopted by industry, not just horizontal standards that comprehensively cover human rights

Human rights AI benchmarks are needed as concrete tools to evaluate AI systems and guide procurement decisions and regulatory frameworks

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are working toward the same goal of effective human rights integration in AI systems, but they have fundamentally different views on whether comprehensive horizontal approaches or targeted sector-specific approaches are more effective. This represents a strategic disagreement about implementation methodology rather than goals

Topics

Human rights | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus on fundamental goals with limited but significant disagreements on implementation approaches, timing of engagement, and strategic priorities for standards development

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high implications – while speakers largely agreed on the importance of embedding human rights in AI standards, the strategic disagreements about horizontal vs. sector-specific approaches and timing of engagement could significantly impact the effectiveness of implementation efforts. The consensus on goals but divergence on methods suggests need for coordinated strategy development to reconcile different approaches.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize systematic, process-oriented approaches to human rights integration that involve continuous monitoring and assessment throughout the standards development lifecycle.

Speakers

– Peggy Hicks
– Florian Ostmann

Arguments

Human rights due diligence provides a four-step framework for standards development organizations to identify, assess, integrate, and track human rights risks

Standards development requires both process considerations (who participates) and substance considerations (what standards should contain) to adequately address human rights

Topics

Human rights | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers challenge the notion of technological neutrality and emphasize the practical challenges of translating human rights principles into concrete technical implementations while ensuring diverse perspectives are included.

Speakers

– Karen McCabe
– Caitlin Kraft Buchman

Arguments

Standards must translate high-level human rights principles into measurable engineering requirements while managing consensus-building challenges

Technology is not neutral – diverse perspectives and inclusive data standards improve robustness and effectiveness for all users

Topics

Human rights | Digital standards | Legal and regulatory

Both recognize the importance of addressing the broader social and economic impacts of AI, particularly regarding job displacement and the need for just transition approaches that protect workers and communities.

Speakers

– Peggy Hicks
– Audience

Arguments

Engagement with corporations through UN guiding principles on business and human rights addresses just transition concerns including AI-related job displacement

AI sector needs low carbon just transition similar to other industries, with focus on how corporations handle AI-related job displacement

Topics

Human rights | Future of work | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Technical standards are not neutral – they fundamentally regulate how technology is used and how human rights are exercised, making human rights integration essential rather than optional

Multi-stakeholder collaboration between UN agencies (ITU, OHCHR), standards bodies (IEEE, ISO, IEC), civil society, and technical communities is critical for effective human rights integration in AI standards

Human rights due diligence provides a concrete four-step framework (identify, assess, integrate, track) that standards development organizations can adopt to systematically address human rights risks

Practical tools like human rights AI benchmarks are needed to evaluate AI systems and guide procurement decisions, as no international human rights framework benchmark for machine learning currently exists

Bridging technical and human rights communities requires dedicated education, mentorship programs, and development of shared vocabulary to overcome communication barriers

Standards development must focus on both process considerations (ensuring diverse participation, especially from Global South and civil society) and substance considerations (what standards should contain)

Industry adoption is key – standards must be practical and focused on sectors/use cases that will actually be implemented, not just comprehensive horizontal standards

AI governance consensus is emerging globally, as evidenced by the Human Rights Council’s recent consensus resolution on human rights and emerging technologies

Resolutions and action items

ITU to implement capacity building courses with human rights modules for all standards committees and enhance human rights literacy among members

OHCHR and ITU to continue developing and implementing their approved work plan on technical standards and human rights through TSAG

IEEE to continue expanding their 7000 series standards addressing bias, privacy, and transparency, with over 100 standards in development

Women at the Table to complete their human rights AI benchmark evaluation of five large language models across five rights areas (privacy, due process, non-discrimination, social protection, health)

Standards development organizations to adopt human rights due diligence processes including transparency measures and meaningful stakeholder engagement

Continued collaboration between ITU, ISO, and IEC with human rights as one of three key pillars alongside AI and green technologies

Development of AI standards exchange to maintain register of definitions and applicable standards for evaluating AI systems as recommended in Global Digital Compact

Unresolved issues

How to effectively reach and engage scientists at the inception stage of technology development, particularly those working within corporations

Addressing resource and capacity constraints that prevent civil society organizations from meaningfully participating in standards development processes

Managing the complexity of translating broad human rights principles into measurable engineering requirements while maintaining consensus across diverse stakeholders with different interpretations

Ensuring just transition considerations for workers displaced by AI implementation, particularly in collaboration with large corporations

Determining which specific standards should be prioritized for human rights integration given the vast landscape of over 250 AI standards currently under development

Balancing the need for comprehensive horizontal human rights standards with industry preference for narrowly focused, sector-specific standards that are more likely to be adopted

Addressing the challenge that many key AI scientists and developers work within corporations, making early-stage engagement difficult

Suggested compromises

Developing both horizontal human rights standards for comprehensive coverage and sector-specific standards for practical industry adoption

Creating mentorship and education programs that pair technical experts with human rights specialists to bridge knowledge gaps

Establishing free educational courses and shared vocabulary resources to help both policymakers and technologists collaborate effectively

Using frameworks like ‘ethically aligned design’ to provide structure while allowing flexibility for diverse stakeholder input

Focusing on management system standards for AI that don’t require deep technical expertise, making them more accessible to human rights practitioners

Implementing transparency measures and open multi-stakeholder processes to accommodate different perspectives while maintaining technical rigor

Pursuing collaborative approaches between standards bodies through liaising agreements to create multiplier effects for human rights integration

Technical standards actually end up regulating how we use technology and what is technology. So they are not, even though we sometimes say this is a technical issue, these technical issues actually very well determine how our rights are exercised.

Speaker

Tomas Lamanauskas

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by challenging the common misconception that technical standards are neutral or purely technical matters. It establishes that standards are inherently political and rights-affecting instruments, which is foundational to understanding why human rights must be embedded in AI standards.

Impact

This insight set the conceptual foundation for the entire panel discussion. It shifted the conversation from whether human rights should be considered in technical standards to how they should be integrated, making the case that technical decisions are inherently human rights decisions.

Incorporating human rights into standards can present some challenges… Technically, it’s difficult to translate broad human rights principles into measurable engineering requirements… Procedurally, most standards are developed by consensus-type processes. So when you’re looking at human rights principles, they could be interpreted differently among different stakeholders from different parts of the world.

Speaker

Karen McCabe

Reason

This comment introduced crucial practical complexity to the discussion by acknowledging the real-world challenges of implementation. Rather than offering platitudes, McCabe provided an honest assessment of the technical, procedural, and institutional obstacles that must be overcome.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from idealistic goals to practical implementation challenges. It grounded the conversation in reality and prompted other speakers to address how these challenges could be overcome, leading to more concrete solutions and methodologies.

This notion of technology being neutral is really been sort of discredited… We use often this example of the cockpits when the U.S. Congress in 1990 said women needed to become fighter pilots… They had to redesign the cockpit so that things were really adjustable and in different places. And they made much more efficient planes for that reason, because they had to build a cockpit for that kind of diversity.

Speaker

Caitlin Kraft-Buchman

Reason

This comment used a powerful concrete analogy to illustrate how designing for diversity and inclusion actually improves outcomes for everyone. It challenged the false choice between efficiency and inclusivity, showing that inclusive design often leads to better overall solutions.

Impact

This analogy provided a tangible way to understand abstract concepts about inclusive AI design. It shifted the framing from human rights as a constraint on innovation to human rights as a driver of better innovation, making the business case for inclusive standards development.

How do we ensure that we cross these two worlds where we as a human rights community explain to people from a technical world about what certain notions mean and that on the other hand we understand the technical issues? I think this seems to be a challenge which is very important to overcome.

Speaker

Matthias Kloth

Reason

This question identified the fundamental communication and knowledge gap that underlies many of the implementation challenges discussed. It highlighted that the problem isn’t just technical or legal, but fundamentally about bridging different professional cultures and vocabularies.

Impact

This question prompted concrete responses about mentorship programs, education initiatives, and cross-disciplinary collaboration methods. It moved the discussion toward practical solutions for building bridges between communities, leading to specific recommendations for training and capacity building.

Is anybody talking to the scientists who were actually at the inception of these technologies? Because I think we were just not reaching them enough, because we’re actually late in the cycle.

Speaker

Mark Janowski

Reason

This comment challenged the entire premise of the discussion by suggesting that focusing on standards development might be addressing the problem too late in the process. It raised the critical question of whether intervention at the research and development stage might be more effective.

Impact

This question forced participants to confront the limitations of their current approach and consider earlier intervention points. It highlighted a potential gap in strategy and prompted Peggy Hicks to mention their second phase work on engaging at the beginning of the product development cycle.

It’s really important to recognize that it’s a vast field. We’ve got a database for AI standards. It’s got over 250 standards currently in there… CSOs have often told us the ideal is to have a horizontal standard… But we also know that industry is often focused on much more narrowly focused standards… It’s not enough to just have a catalog where there is one standard that has human rights included.

Speaker

Florian Ostmann

Reason

This comment revealed the complexity and fragmentation of the AI standards landscape, highlighting the strategic challenge of where to focus limited resources and attention. It showed that good intentions aren’t enough without strategic thinking about implementation and adoption.

Impact

This insight brought strategic realism to the discussion’s conclusion, emphasizing that success requires not just developing good standards but ensuring they get adopted and used. It highlighted the need for strategic prioritization and practical considerations about industry adoption patterns.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it through several important transitions: from theoretical principles to practical implementation challenges, from viewing human rights as constraints to seeing them as drivers of innovation, and from idealistic goals to strategic realism about adoption and effectiveness. The comments collectively built a more nuanced understanding that embedding human rights in AI standards requires not just good intentions but also cross-cultural communication, strategic thinking about intervention points, and realistic assessment of implementation challenges. The discussion evolved from a high-level policy conversation to a practical roadmap for action, with each insightful comment adding layers of complexity and realism that ultimately strengthened the overall framework for moving forward.

How do we ensure cross-understanding between human rights communities and technical communities when explaining concepts and technical issues?

Speaker

Matthias Kloth

Explanation

This addresses a fundamental challenge in bridging the gap between human rights expertise and technical standards development, which is crucial for effective integration of human rights principles in AI standards.

How do you work with big corporations on just transition in AI, particularly regarding layoffs due to AI implementation?

Speaker

Audience member from low carbon sector

Explanation

This question highlights the need to understand how human rights frameworks can address the socioeconomic impacts of AI adoption, particularly job displacement and ensuring equitable transitions.

Is anybody talking to the scientists responsible for the inception of AI technologies, rather than focusing only on later stages of the development cycle?

Speaker

Mark Janowski

Explanation

This identifies a potential gap in engagement with AI researchers and developers at the earliest stages of technology development, suggesting that human rights considerations may be introduced too late in the process.

Which AI standards should be prioritized for integrating human rights – horizontal standards that cover broad AI issues or sector-specific standards that may see more adoption?

Speaker

Florian Ostmann

Explanation

This strategic question addresses the challenge of ensuring human rights considerations are embedded in standards that will actually be used and implemented, rather than just existing in comprehensive but potentially underutilized frameworks.

How can we ensure meaningful representation of Global South perspectives, civil society organizations, and appropriate expertise (technical vs. human rights) in standards development processes?

Speaker

Florian Ostmann

Explanation

This addresses systemic representation gaps in standards development that could undermine the effectiveness and legitimacy of human rights integration in AI standards.

How can we address resource and skills barriers that prevent civil society organizations from participating effectively in AI standards development?

Speaker

Florian Ostmann

Explanation

This identifies practical obstacles to inclusive participation in standards development, which is essential for ensuring diverse perspectives and human rights expertise are incorporated.

Summary

This discussion focused on strengthening inclusive, rights-based digital governance as part of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process, with particular emphasis on artificial intelligence ethics and information integrity. The session brought together representatives from various organizations including the ITU, European Commission, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Wikimedia Foundation, and Internet Society to explore multi-stakeholder approaches to AI governance.

Rasmus Lumi from Estonia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, representing the Freedom Online Coalition, opened by emphasizing the critical importance of maintaining the multi-stakeholder Internet governance model against attempts to impose centralized state control. The panelists consistently stressed that effective AI governance requires meaningful participation from all stakeholders – governments, private sector, civil society, academia, and end users – rather than relying solely on multilateral approaches.

Key themes emerged around the need for transparency, accountability, and inclusion in AI systems. Isabel Ebert highlighted how human rights frameworks should serve as the foundation for ethical AI governance, advocating for a forward-looking approach that asks what kind of societies we want AI to help build. Jan Gerlach emphasized civil society’s dual role as both participants in governance processes and builders of digital public goods like Wikipedia, noting that AI systems are often trained on data from these community-curated sources.

The discussion also addressed persistent digital divides, with Dan York pointing out that 2.6 billion people remain offline, potentially deepening inequalities as AI tools become more prevalent. Panelists called for open standards and protocols in AI development, similar to those that enabled the Internet’s success, while supporting innovation without permission. The session concluded with recognition that balancing AI innovation with societal protection remains a critical challenge requiring continued multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multi-stakeholder governance model preservation**: Strong emphasis on defending the distributed, multi-stakeholder Internet governance model against attempts to impose centralized state control, particularly in the context of WSIS Plus 20 review and AI governance frameworks.

– **AI ethics and human rights integration**: Discussion of how to embed human rights frameworks, transparency, and accountability into AI governance, with focus on ensuring AI serves society rather than deepening inequalities or undermining democratic participation.

– **Civil society participation and shrinking civic space**: Concerns about maintaining meaningful civil society engagement in Internet governance processes, including challenges with funding, access to forums, and threats to multi-stakeholder participation in various UN processes.

– **Digital divide and connectivity gaps**: Recognition that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected to the Internet, and that AI development may be widening rather than closing digital divides, excluding voices from global South and marginalized communities.

– **Information integrity and trustworthy ecosystems**: Focus on combating disinformation while protecting freedom of expression, supporting independent journalism, digital public goods like Wikipedia, and ensuring diverse voices are represented in information systems.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how the WSIS Plus 20 review process can strengthen inclusive, rights-based digital governance, particularly regarding AI ethics and information integrity. The session sought to develop concrete policy recommendations for maintaining multi-stakeholder engagement while addressing emerging challenges from AI and threats to Internet freedom.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative yet urgent tone throughout. Participants expressed shared concerns about threats to the multi-stakeholder model and human rights online, while remaining constructively focused on solutions. There was an underlying tension between optimism about technology’s potential benefits and anxiety about current challenges to Internet governance and civil society participation. The tone became slightly more pressing toward the end when discussing immediate threats like the Open-Ended Working Group negotiations and calls to pause AI regulation for competitive reasons.

Speakers

– **Ernst Noorman** – Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands, Session Moderator

– **Rasmus Lumi** – Director General, International Organization and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, Chair of the Freedom Online Coalition

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Strategy and Policy Coordinator at the ITU, responsible for the World Summit on Information Society process

– **Thibaut Kleiner** – Director for Policy, Strategy, and Outreach at DG Connect of the European Commission, former Head of the Unit of Network Technologies

– **Isabel Ebert** – Senior Advisor of Business and Human Rights and Tech at the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights of the UN, Advisor at the BTEC Project on Business and Human Rights in the Technology Sector, member of the OECD AI Group of Experts

– **Jan Gerlach** – Public Policy Director of Wikipedia Foundation, leads global advocacy efforts within Wikimedia Foundation

– **Dan York** – Chief of Staff of the Office of the CEO at the Internet Society, background in DNS, real-time communication, and IETF involvement

– **Participant** – Riyad Abathia, former NGO’s Coordination Office in the United Nations, international civil society activist

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the speakers names list.

# Strengthening Multi-Stakeholder Digital Governance: WSIS Plus 20 Discussion Report

## Introduction

This discussion, moderated by Ernst Noorman, Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands, brought together representatives from international organizations, governments, civil society, and the technical community as part of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. The session, organized by the Freedom Online Coalition, focused on artificial intelligence ethics and information integrity within the context of multi-stakeholder Internet governance.

The panel included Rasmus Lumi (Director General, Estonia Ministry of Foreign Affairs and FOC Chair), Gitanjali Sah (ITU Strategy and Policy Coordinator), Isabel Ebert (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights), Thibaut Kleiner (European Commission DG Connect), Dan York (Internet Society), and Jan Gerlag (Wikimedia Foundation).

## Opening Framework: Freedom Online Coalition Priorities

Rasmus Lumi established the session’s context by highlighting threats to foundational Internet governance principles. He emphasized that “we cannot overcome the challenges without the meaningful engagement of all shareholders” and warned that “efforts to impose centralised control threaten to undermine the Internet’s fundamental openness, risking fragmentation and compromising the very attributes that have made the Internet a catalyst for progress and innovation.”

Lumi positioned 2025 as a critical year when “long-standing values” face challenges, noting that some countries are attempting to “veto multistakeholder civil society organizations out of the room.” The Freedom Online Coalition’s response involves working through multi-stakeholder formats to defend established governance principles.

## Multi-Stakeholder Governance Approaches

### Institutional Perspectives

Gitanjali Sah emphasized that “WSIS Plus 20 provides opportunity for multi-stakeholder dialogue to include all voices in the UN General Assembly review process.” She highlighted the ITU’s commitment to inclusive participation, noting the WSIS Forum’s “literally five months” open consultative process and efforts to accommodate remote participation and different time zones.

Thibaut Kleiner advocated for strengthening existing mechanisms, suggesting that the “Internet Governance Forum should become permanent UN institution with own budget and director for ongoing discussions about emerging technologies.” He emphasized that approaches should be “bottom-up, owned by local constituencies rather than imposed.”

### Technical Community Perspective

Dan York brought technical expertise to the governance discussion, noting that “technical communities bring essential expertise whilst civil society provides knowledge about impacts on vulnerable populations.” He emphasized the Internet’s success through “open standards, open protocols, and innovation without permission principle” while expressing concern about maintaining this balance as governance evolves.

## Human Rights Framework for Digital Governance

Isabel Ebert positioned human rights as the foundation for digital governance, arguing that “human rights framework should serve as common minimum denominator for ethical approach to technology.” She reframed the AI governance debate by suggesting we ask “what kind of societies do we want AI to help us build and which accountability structures for different actors and their distinct role can incentivise this.”

Ebert called for “transparent rules matching pace of AI development with benefits shared across nations and risks thoughtfully managed,” emphasizing transparency, accountability, and inclusion as core principles.

## Artificial Intelligence Governance Challenges

### Cross-Sectoral Coordination

Gitanjali Sah emphasized that “AI governance must be cross-sectoral, looking across health, agriculture, education with overarching ethical framework.” This comprehensive approach recognizes AI’s impact across all sectors of society rather than treating it as a standalone technical issue.

### Technical Standards and Openness

Dan York advocated for “open standards and protocols for AI transparency, explainability, and accountability,” drawing parallels with Internet development. He expressed concern about “proprietary, closed AI systems creating vendor lock-in and concentrated power,” emphasizing the need to maintain open, collaborative approaches in AI development.

## Civil Society as Digital Infrastructure Builders

Jan Gerlag provided a significant reframing of civil society’s role, emphasizing that “civil society, the people who use the internet, also build large parts of the internet… They build the digital public goods that the Global Digital Compact aims to support.” Using Wikipedia as an example, he illustrated how civil society creates and maintains critical Internet infrastructure through “massive self-governed collaboration systems.”

Gerlag noted that “good AI governance requires supporting communities who curate and verify information that feeds AI systems,” highlighting civil society’s role in creating trustworthy information ecosystems. However, he warned that “civil society input is critical for internet governance success, but their access to these processes is under threat.”

## Digital Divides and Connectivity

Dan York introduced sobering statistics, noting that “one-third of the world (2.6 billion people) still lacks internet access, and AI development risks deepening digital divide.” He explained how technological advancement can worsen inequalities: “Those of us who have access to the AI tools and systems that we’re all using, we are able to be more productive… And we’re leaving the folks who are offline further behind.”

York also highlighted that “those without connectivity cannot contribute knowledge to information pools used for training AI models,” showing how digital exclusion affects both access to AI benefits and representation in AI systems.

## Information Integrity and Community Approaches

Jan Gerlag presented Wikipedia as a model for community-driven information integrity, noting that Wikipedia and similar projects “provide vital information access and represent massive self-governed collaboration systems.” The Wikimedia Foundation’s approach emphasizes supporting “individual agency through literacy, privacy, safety and transparency” rather than relying solely on top-down content moderation.

The discussion highlighted the need to “support civil society organisations through smart policies and funding to sustain trustworthy information ecosystems,” recognizing that community-driven approaches require institutional support to remain sustainable.

## International Cooperation and Regulatory Balance

Ernst Noorman addressed tensions between innovation and protection, noting that “right now, if you look at the AI discussion, it’s more and more about competition. Who will be the winner?” He argued that “AI is there to serve society and humanity” and criticized calls to “pause the EU AI Act because of competition reasons,” stating that “competition concerns should not override regulation designed to protect society and create level playing fields.”

## Audience Engagement and Practical Concerns

The session included audience participation, with questions about regional coordination and the role of national chapters in Internet governance. Speakers emphasized leveraging existing mechanisms, including what Dan York noted as “180 different national or regional Internet Governance Forums” worldwide, rather than creating entirely new structures.

## Key Challenges and Ongoing Issues

The discussion identified several persistent challenges:

– Ensuring meaningful multi-stakeholder participation while some actors attempt to exclude civil society

– Balancing AI innovation with societal protection and rights-based approaches

– Addressing the digital divide while preventing AI from deepening existing inequalities

– Maintaining open, collaborative approaches in AI development similar to Internet governance

– Supporting civil society organizations’ capacity to participate in governance processes

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated broad agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder governance and human rights-centered approaches to digital governance, while revealing different emphases on implementation strategies. The discussion highlighted the need to defend established Internet governance principles while adapting to emerging challenges from AI development and persistent digital divides.

The session concluded with time constraints as “the president of Estonia is about to make his remarks,” reflecting the broader context of high-level diplomatic engagement around these issues. The emphasis throughout was on maintaining inclusive, participatory approaches to governance while ensuring that technological development serves societal needs rather than merely competitive interests.

Ernst Noorman: Good morning everyone. Very much welcome to this session. First of all, my name is Ernst Noorman. I’m the Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Netherlands. By the way, I also want to welcome the online participants to this session. Before I introduce the panelists, I will introduce the subject of this morning. As we approach the 20th year review of the World Summit on Information Society, or the WSIS Plus 20 as we all know it, it’s a timely moment to reflect on how we can strengthen inclusive rights-based digital governance. This session focuses on WSIS Action Line C10 and C11 on ethical dimensions of the information society and international cooperation. Our goal is to explore how multi-stakeholder engagement, including civil society, the private sector, academia, and end-users can help shape digital spaces that uphold human rights and support sustainable development. A key part of this conversation will be the role of artificial intelligence, especially generative and decision-making systems, in shaping the integrity of online information, trust, and democratic participation. We’ll look at how governance frameworks can promote transparency, accountability, and equity while protecting freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination. We’ll also consider whether current international and human rights frameworks are equipped to respond to the rapid evolution of AI and how we can work together to prevent these technologies from deepening existing inequalities. Finally, we’ll highlight, at least I hope, practical and collaborative approaches to bridging digital divides and building trustworthy information ecosystems that advance the sustainable development goals. I look forward to an engaging discussion with concrete strategies and policy ideas that can help to shape a more inclusive and ethical digital future. Now, for that, we have five excellent speakers, which I will introduce right now. First of all, we have Gitanjali Sa to my right, and she’s the Strategy and Policy Coordinator at the ITU and is responsible for the World Summit on Information Society process. Then we have Thibaut Kleiner, to the left of me, and recently appointed as Director for Policy, Strategy, and Outreach at DG Connect of the European Commission, and also experienced as before as the Head of the Unit of Network Technologies, and this unit was in charge, or is in charge, of research and innovation in the area of wireless optical networks, network architecture, Internet of Things, SATCOM, and the 5G public-private partnerships. Then we have Isabelle Ebert, to the right of me, Senior Advisor of Business and Human Rights and Tech at the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights of the UN, and Isabelle is an Advisor at the BTEC Project on Business and Human Rights in the Technology Sector and a member of the OECD AI Group of Experts. Then we have Jan Gerlag, to the left of me. Jan is the Public Policy Director of Wikipedia Foundation, and at Wikimedia Foundation he leads efforts within the global advocacy teams to educate lawmakers and governments worldwide on Internet policies that promote and protect Wikipedia and open knowledge participation. And finally, as a participant in the panel, is Dan York, and Dan serves as the Chief of Staff of the Office of the CEO at the Internet Society, advising the President and CEO, coordinating organizational priorities and managing key relationships, and his recent work has focused on Internet shutdowns, resilience, and projects such as sustainable technical communities, Leo satellites, and open standards everywhere. And with a background in DNS, real-time communication, and long-standing involvement in the IETF, Dan has been working with online technologies since the mid-80s, so a long experience. But first, we start off with my dear friend Rasmus Lumi, Director General, International Organization and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, and right now the Chair of the Freedom Online Coalition, to share his thoughts on what the role of the FOC and similar initiatives could play in shaping AI and information integrity standards in the WSIS-20 process and beyond. Please welcome to the floor. Thank you.

Rasmus Lumi: Thank you very much, and I’m very glad and honored to be here, to be able to deliver the opening remarks to this very distinguished panel. So, first of all, I’d like to say that it’s kind of obvious, maybe, but I think it is also needed to be repeated that 2025 seems to be the year where our long-standing values and principles are being challenged more than ever, and international organizations, especially the United Nations, are in notable difficulties. While, as always, this presents opportunities, I’m afraid we will much more likely be struggling with the challenges. With this in mind, we will have to renegotiate the future of the Internet management. We all know that the multi-stakeholder format is of key importance here. We cannot overcome the challenges without the meaningful engagement of all shareholders. We need coordinated response. This is where the Freedom Online Coalition comes to play. The Freedom Online Coalition’s core mission to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms online remains essential, and this roundtable reflects FOC’s commitment to ensuring that digital transformation is rights-based, and the FOC is a good example of a multi-stakeholder format. As we approach the WSIS Plus 20 review process, we, the like-minded, both through the FOC and in other ways, must unite our efforts to resist any attempts to overturn the existing distributed multi-stakeholder Internet governance model and attempts to expand state control over the Internet. We must adopt a strong common approach to ensure the protection of the Internet’s decentralized model. Efforts to impose centralized control threaten to undermine the Internet’s fundamental openness, risking fragmentation and compromising the very attributes that have made the Internet a catalyst for progress and innovation. Multi-stakeholder approach enshrined in the Tunis agenda and reaffirmed in the GDC is based on the premise that effective Internet governance must be inclusive, participatory, and consensus-driven, involving a broad array of actors from the public sector, private sector, civil society, technical community, academia, regional and international organizations. Multilateralism alone is not sufficient to solve the global digital challenges. Given what I said before about attempts to overthrow the current Internet governance model, it is a risk. Multi-stakeholder models ensure that all relevant actors, including the technical community and so on, are part of the open conversation. Deeper collaboration between the stakeholders is more important than ever to address cross-border challenges. We have to integrate multi-stakeholder involvement into multilateral forums. The continued general availability and integrity of the Internet as a global and interoperable network of networks is fully dependent on the continued functioning of the multi-stakeholder model. This session is an opportunity to develop concrete recommendations that can complement both the WSIS plus 20 process and the FOC’s ongoing efforts to uphold Internet freedom worldwide. Finally, as a token of appreciation to the multi-stakeholders, I would like to thank the Freedom Online Coalition’s advisory network for their proactive advice on WSIS plus 20, as well as on the Elements paper. We will work together with FOC member states to take this feedback into account in our national positions. Thank you very much.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much, Rasmus, for your opening words. And also for your leadership this year in the FOC, the Freedom Online Coalition. Now, with the question to the panellists, let me, allow me to start with you, Gitanjali Sah. How do you see that WSIS plus 20 can advance ethical and rights-based digital governance, particularly in the context of AI and information integrity?

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you so much, moderator. Good morning, everyone. It’s nice to see a full room because it’s such an important topic. You know, going forward, we need opportunities of multi-stakeholder dialogue like we have, we got at the IGF, we’re getting here at the WSIS forum, so that all the voices are included and put forth to the UNGA overall review. This is where the decisions will be made in December. They will come out with an outcome document where, which should reflect the urgencies, especially the urgencies of the ethical dimension that we face right now. So within the WSIS process, we do have an action line on cyber security as well, along with ethics and access. It’s all cross-sectoral. So what we heard out here is, even when we are talking about regulation, we have to look across all sectors. We had a regulators round table, which, which really concluded with this aspect that, one, we have to look across We need more best practices that we can share across all the countries, across all the stakeholders. Secondly, we really need to have more cross-sectoral work. What we are talking about in health is also equally important in agriculture, is equally important in education. So when we are talking about AI ethics, we really need to ensure that we are looking at it from an overarching framework and it is cross-sectoral. The third thing that we have been pressing upon is that other than the awareness that we are creating with organisations like the, really not an organisation but a group, Freedom Online Coalition, for us like this, awareness building is extremely important so that not only the regular stakeholder communities but also communities of educators, communities of really engineers, the private sector that is designing all of this has this moral responsibility and is included in these kind of discussions. So yes, awareness, ensuring all communities are involved as the UN system, as ITU, we are committed to providing a platform, an equal and just platform where all stakeholders can have a voice and that the voice is included in the UN processes. So really going forward, the ethical dimension remains a crucial element, rights of people online. We were just discussing the rights of children also in the previous session that, you know, there is a lot happening on the internet, the dark net, how do the children know about their rights, are the schools educating them, do we have the right governance structures, do we have guidelines for parents, for educators, so a lot of work has to be done, but the fact that we are discussing it and we are making sure that it’s inputted into the UN process, the overall UN process through WSIS is very important. Thank you very much.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much, Gitanjali, for your comments. Isabel, now what do you see as the most effective way to promote transparency, accountability and inclusion in AI governance through multi-stakeholder cooperation?

Isabel Ebert: Thanks very much. Thanks a lot also to the Freedom Online Coalition to continue to convene this very important dialogue. It’s an honour to be here. Yeah, I think what we see, I mean also the conference taking place very closely to here, the core goal of this discussion is that we want to realise that technology can really power benefits, but in order to do so we need to make sure that people are not left behind and we are not undermining the purpose of the technology that it sets out to achieve by ignoring certain risks. And here it’s really important also to bring in the ethical dimension and international cooperation that is key to achieve that we are able to realise the benefits by managing the risks. Here there’s always this debate around ethics, human rights, how does it act together. Human rights framework as such is the framework that the member states of the UN have committed to, that the Global Digital Compact has endorsed and it should really serve as the common minimum denominator to conceptualise whether it’s an ethical approach to technology. The other aspect I wanted to highlight is that a responsible technology future is not automatic by just applying technologies to all spheres of society. We need to first understand what type of responsible technology future we want and then see how technology can support this. And these choices we are making in the WSIS process are really important to ensure that the parameters for AI governance we are setting are responsible and rights respecting. So with regard to transparency, accountability and inclusion I would like to lead with three reflections. Firstly, creating transparent rules of the road are important by introducing policies and oversight mechanisms that can match the pace and scope of AI development, new technologies development and ensuring that the benefits are communicated and shared across nations and that risk to people are thoughtfully managed and anticipated. Second, we need to shift the terms of the debate to a forward-looking and solution-oriented accountability conception. Instead of asking how do we adapt AI, we should ask what kind of societies do we want AI to help us build and which accountability structures for different actors and their distinct role can incentivise this. Not only through regulation but also through incentive-based stimulus packages. And thirdly, making the rules of the game inclusive. So with regard to exclusivity, it’s important to expand who gets to participate in the decisions around AI governance beyond state, equipping multilateralism also with a dialogue with affected communities that are often not sufficiently reflected in these processes and making sure that also the design processes of new technologies are developed in engagement with communities in order to make better products, safer products, which also again then bringing me to the most important stakeholder group, at least for BTEC, ensuring responsible business conduct, ensuring that the companies that are at the forefront of developing new technologies build human rights into their products and services. And in that regard, human rights provide a guidance how AI can be governed. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights define respective roles and responsibilities of states and companies towards working human rights and they are also very important to, since they hadn’t been in place when WSIS was conceived initially, to now take into account for the very important process this year. Which leads me to conclude that the multi-stakeholder model is really essential to achieve transparency, accountability and inclusion in AI governance and the human rights frameworks, both the International Human Rights Framework as well as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights can help us to understand what is at stake in the AI governance debate. The BTEC project has published a taxonomy of how AI relates to human rights. We are putting out a lot of guidance in order to, what I said earlier, promote the solutions-oriented, forward-looking accountability approach and this applies to a range of rights, non-discrimination, privacy, access to information, freedom of expression and we are convinced that innovation on human rights values can deliver a lot of benefit to the people.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much. Jan, I think I have an excellent question for you as a follow-up also to the remarks of Isabel and that’s what you see as a role that civil society should play in ensuring that the WSIS plus 20 process leads to a rights-based AI governance and the development of trustworthy inclusive information ecosystem, especially in the face of disinformation and shrinking civic space.

Jan Gerlach: Thank you, Ernst, for the question. It’s quite complex, it took me a bit to unpack it first but I think from a Wikimedia perspective I’d say there are two main things to note about civil society participation in this process. First, and this one may sound obvious, but civil society input makes internet governance and regulation better. In fact, it’s critical for our shared success. However, we’re fighting a bit and maybe that’s an understatement right now for the future of civil society access to internet governance processes. Civil society’s ability to participate in these conversations, just like this one, is directly affected by the outcomes of the WSIS plus 20 review and with it its ability to inform future processes like this about trustworthy and inclusive information ecosystems. Now the FOC’s blueprint for information integrity, which Wikimedia, by the way, contributed to, supports individual agency through literacy, privacy, safety and transparency. The blueprint also promotes trust through, again, transparency and accountability around platforms at work, around their products, around algorithms that are used through support for reliable sources of information, including independent journalism, digital public goods, through privacy and safety, especially that safety of marginalized and vulnerable groups. And finally, the blueprint seeks to promote inclusion through linguistic and cultural diversity, through meaningful connectivity, the promotion of diverse and global voices and protection against discrimination and harassment. In all of this, people are front and center, individuals because the internet really must serve them. Now, not all internet users can fit in this room, let alone in smaller ones, and not every perspective will be represented by the members of civil society here. So those people from civil society organizations who are here and who can travel here really need to work hard to ensure that the values and measures of the blueprint for information integrity are turned into reality and informed policy at the international, at the national and local levels. That requires a lot of coordination among civil society groups and organizations, and also a lot of engagement with their own stakeholders to ensure the needs of people around the world are properly understood and fed into these processes. The conversations we’re having here and in other places around the world about the future of WSIS, about the future of IGF and multi-stakeholderism in general, must have civil society participation in order to include voices that otherwise wouldn’t be heard. These voices make internet governance better, especially during times of shrinking civic spaces, and they help ensure that AI governance, too, truly serves people and their rights when we are all at the risk of really drowning in disinformation and synthetic information that isn’t verifiable. Now to my second point, the thing I want to talk about is that civil society, the people who use the internet, also build large parts of the internet. I think that’s underappreciated. They build the digital public goods that the Global Digital Compact aims to support. They are the independent journalists that the blueprint for information integrity wants to support. They are the people building all the small open knowledge projects that underpin the free and open Internet that we all like to talk about. Take Wikipedia as an example, probably the most prominent example of such projects. This online encyclopedia is built by thousands of volunteers from all around the world, from all walks of life, who contribute their time to add content, engage in conversations about the policies that govern Wikipedia, etc. Wikipedia provides vital access to information for populations around the world, and it’s a massive self-governed system of collaboration from people from everywhere. To ensure such projects can continue to thrive, these people, through civil society organizations, need to have a voice at the table of Internet governance processes. One other point I want to make is this. In the halls of AI4Good, there’s a lot of impressive technology on display, mostly built by the private sector, but the science behind it often stems from work in academia. And there are some academic booths, too, and it’s a good reminder that academia really needs to be part of these conversations as well. Lastly, a lot of AI systems, large language models, etc., are trained on data that comes from projects like Wikipedia that verify knowledge and update information regularly. This open ecosystem of trustworthy information needs to be sustained. Good AI governance, among other things, means to support the communities who curate and verify the information that feeds AI. If we want to support a trustworthy ecosystem of information in the age of AI, governments, including FOC member states, must make sure to support this part of civil society as well, through smart policies and through funding. Thank you.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much, Jan. You referred also to different processes going on, and where the multistakeholder involvement is so crucial. It makes me also think of right now the Open-Ended Work Group, which takes place right now in New York. This week is a crucial week in New York on the follow-up of the Open-Ended Work Group on responsible state behavior in ICTs. Multistakeholder involvement there is on top of the agenda for us, for many of us like-minded countries, and it has an especially difficult position there, because many countries want to veto multistakeholder civil society organizations out of the room, and unfortunately have been quite successful at that as well. So you can also ensure that, especially from the few FOC countries, they will be fighting for the future and the follow-up of the Open-Ended Work Group to ensure multistakeholder involvement. But let me continue with Thibaut. How do you see that international and regional and multistakeholder partnerships can help bridge digital divides and support trustworthy, inclusive information ecosystems in the context of WSIS and beyond?

Thibaut Kleiner: So first of all, I’d like to congratulate the organizers for having this topic here so prominently also in the WSIS conference. I think that indeed these days, as you pointed out, the risks linked with technology towards human rights are just growing. The ability of AI, of surveillance technologies to infringe on human rights have just increased, and therefore it’s very important that we do not lower the attention. On the contrary, we should make more attention to this. And in the context of WSIS, I think the European Union has been, and it was very clear also when we were negotiating collectively on the Global Digital Compact. I mean, we’ve really insisted that these human rights dimensions cannot be neglected. They have to be forefront. They have to be really at the heart of what we are talking about. And in a way, this is something we have reflected in the recent past with our declaration on digital rights and principles. That’s really something that we’ve tried to encompass, these various elements along six pillars that we believe reflect very much the types of challenges we have also for WSIS. It’s about putting people and their rights at the center of the digital transformation. It’s about supporting solidarity and inclusion, ensuring freedom of choice online, fostering participation in the digital public space, increasing safety, security, and empowerment of individuals, in particular children, and promoting the sustainability of the digital future. And the interesting thing is that this declaration actually has been also underpinning the regulatory efforts that we have conducted in the EU, developing indeed hard elements and obligations towards private and public actors. And this is, I think, what we can now, through WSIS, organize in terms of discussions between multi-stakeholders. And very much in our view, we want to make sure that the Internet Governance Forum towards WSIS becomes a permanent institution with its own budget from the UN with a director, and also that it can become really the place where we have also repeatedly discussions about how the evolving, the emerging technologies can be looked at, and so that we can make sure that we don’t overlook the importance of protecting human rights. And within WSIS, we think that indeed regions, but also countries and even locally, we can engage in these conversations. And this is what we have tried to do also through various projects the EU is supporting, trying indeed to engage with countries in Africa and Latin America, so that we not only explain the challenges of the digital technologies and the risks that I implied, but also so that we support public debate in these regions. Because at the end of the day, it is not something you can impose from the outside. It is very much our belief that human rights is not something that is just coming from certain countries or regions globally. It’s something that is universal, and it’s something that we very much believe can be bottom-up, owned by the local constituency. So our approach is very much not to impose this view, but actually to try and promote discussion and dialogue with our various partners internationally. And as I said, we try to highlight the way we see it, but we very much believe that it is about communities, it is about companies, the public sector, but also the youth embracing these elements. And I think that’s what WSIS can achieve, really creating a space for dialogue and making sure that we not only put human rights as nice to have, but actually centerpiece for everything we try to build.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much, Thibaut. Then I move to my right, the far furthest right, Dan. With all your experience, how can technical infrastructure, internet standards and governance protocols be strengthened to support trustworthy information ecosystems and ethical AI deployment? And what role should multistakeholder cooperation play in this effort?

Dan York: Thank you for that question, and thank you for the Freedom Online Coalition for hosting this session today. And as a 20-year editor of Wikipedia, I want to say thank you to the Wikimedia Foundation for all that they do around here. So the Internet Society was founded in 1992 by a collection of civil society, academics, technical universities, internet companies, to really build an organization and to think about this vision that the internet is for everyone. It was also the home of the Internet Engineering Task Force, or IETF, which has been the standards organization, has brought us stuff like TCPIP, HTTP, the protocols that allow us to work. And I think if we look at the last 20 years of internet governance, of internet operations and pieces, and the lessons that can be applied forward toward what we’re looking at now with AI and the ethics of AI, et cetera, one of those key elements is the importance of open standards and open protocols and the open development of those standards and pieces that are there. That’s really what got us to where we are. And I think a concern we see from the technical side is that we’re seeing a lot of interest in more proprietary, closed AI systems, et cetera, which create the same kind of issues that we see in some parts of the internet today. Vendor lock-in, closed proprietary systems, concentrated power, those kind of things. Just the internet protocols like TCPIP and HTTP, just as they enable global interoperability, we need to also think about what standards can there be for AI transparency, AI explainability, AI accountability. There are some standards starting to be developed by different groups within some parts of that, but it has to happen at all layers of the AI stack, as we might refer to it as, in some kind of form. And those standards need to be developed in a multi-stakeholder way. You know, the technical communities bring essential knowledge and expertise about system design. Civil society brings important, you know, how those AI systems impact vulnerable populations in ways that we may not necessarily grasp. Governments bring information about policies and how these can be extended in ways. End users, you know, provide crucial feedback about how they can change and shape. These are the elements that need to be all part of it. AI systems and policies need to be developed by, you know, the rural farmer that we are. and the students who might be using AI-affected agriculture, and also the students who might be using AI-moderated education. It’s something that’s there. And another key point for us is that we have to think about the fact that a third of the world is still not connected. There’s 2.6 billion people who do not have access to the internet. And those who do don’t necessarily have affordable, reliable, or resilient connectivity. We’re, in fact, with some of what we’re doing, we are deepening the digital divide. Because those of us who have access to the AI tools and systems that we’re all using, we are able to be more productive or use things in different ways. And we’re leaving the folks who are offline further behind. And also, we’re not gaining access to the knowledge and information that they may have. They are not contributing into the pools of information, as was mentioned earlier, that are being used to train these models and to work with things. So there’s a need to bring that in as well. So it’s this combination of open standards, open protocols, ways to involve everyone and connect those who are there, and to really bring all of the folks in to be part of this. And I think the last piece I would just mention is that one of the principles of the internet that has made it work so well to where we are today is this idea that you can have innovation without permission. The ability to go and create new ideas, bring things out, publish new reports, publish new websites, open up new tools, without having to go and ask somebody permission or pay somebody to put this online. Some of us who may have been around before the internet remember a time when you couldn’t put anything online unless you paid somebody to do so. It was a different world. We need to figure out how to balance so that we are protecting the harms and things, but also ensuring that that level of innovation continues and to work with that. So a bit of that from the technical community side, and we’re looking forward to working with all of you in trying to help as we continue to move out into this new world.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you very much. We do have still some time for questions. I do not see actually microphones. I see at least a hand, so that’s very good. But now the question is if you have a microphone to raise your question. Otherwise you… Someone is running. Yes, great. Please, introduce yourself and…

Participant: Thank you very much. My name is Riyad Abathia. I’m a former NGO’s Coordination Office in the United Nations, international civil society activist in the UN since more than 20 years ago. I’m contributing, we are contributing in WSIS process since the beginning, and civil society effort is recognizable in the WSIS process since the beginning. Ten years earlier, we are celebrating this year 20 years, the best age of life. Ten years earlier, ten years later, the state member adopted precious document and it’s working since then like that. Some other foundation NGOs are actively engaged in the WSIS process. We have a largest network for cities, largest workers for spectrum. We talk spectrum and quick term and other NGOs also. What I want to say that… My questions, yes. I appreciate your talk. But anyway, those institutions who are not international organizations, who are not non-governmental organization, who are not foundation, and we have at least one representative in the panel, ISOC, Internet Society. You are like IEEE, you are like IGF, you are like top level demand, you are five or seven institutions. Your contributions in the Internet community is very highly determinated. But I don’t know because ITU, what they’re doing with state members and the complement effort of civil society. But until now, as Secretary General said the first day, that two billions didn’t be connected until now. But yes, ISOC Congress hosted in Geneva 2012, it was largest 3,000 delegates. But how about the enhancing of regional coordination offices of ISOC, for example? How about to support the national office chapters of ISOC? This is what is needed also and state members are expecting and also ITU will be complemented. Thank you very much.

Ernst Noorman: Hopefully my question has been clear. That’s a question to Dan. Yes. Okay.

Dan York: So, I think you’re asking how can we, as the Internet Society and other groups like that, help these discussions at a national level or local level, regional level? Yeah, I think, so thank you for asking that question. The Internet Society does have 120 chapters around the world in various different areas. Some of those are national, some regional in different areas. And those chapters are very engaged in these kind of conversations, perhaps not in some of this level of AI ethics and pieces around that because this is a newer topic. In many areas, we’re mostly focused around the connectivity and in trying to ensure that people have affordable, resilient, reliable, you know, connectivity and pieces. But this is part of the bigger picture. Some of our chapters are very involved with AI topics and other elements around that. So, it varies widely because they are individual organizations. I think the bigger picture, though, is that how do you engage people from out in various different regions and areas who cannot necessarily come into these forums? The comment earlier about the civil society aspect of this, it’s hard for civil society organizations and others to participate in venues such as this. One of our concerns, certainly, is that we would like to see, we don’t want to see a proliferation of more events or more mechanisms. Because each one of those is more cost, is more elements that it’s harder for organizations to be able to participate in. So, that is one concern. But we certainly do see that organizations at a national level, at a regional level, should be able to have some way to participate in these kind of venues, which is why we’re a big fan of the Internet Governance Forum and the way that it brings people together. There are now about 180 different national or regional Internet Governance Forums which are bringing people together all around the world. And those are other elements and ways that people are having a voice into the ongoing conversations that we’re having. So, thank you again for the question.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you for the response. You want to react?

Gitanjali Sah: Yes, thank you. Riyad, we have ensured as ITU that the WSIS remains multi-stakeholder. For instance, even at the WSIS Forum, you have remote participation in every room for the civil society organizations who couldn’t be here. We are also very responsive about the requirements of the regional time zones. So, we try to accommodate that as well. And as you all know, the agenda and the program of the WSIS Forum is built through an open consultative process. It’s really like literally five months where you can input through an official form and let us know what you want to see at the WSIS Forum. And civil society is a very active partner for that. We have several physical meetings as well. And we really want you to contribute and to help us to ensure that we keep this dialogue going beyond 2025 as well. I just also wanted to add, moderator, that when the WSIS outcome documents were drafted, they were really a universal declaration of human rights is right on the second page of the WSIS outcome document, right? So, we must also recall that the documents were drafted in a very, very inclusive and sound manner. And we must continue that spirit of inclusion, of making sure that the framework of the WSIS Action Lines continue to remain relevant as they have evolved with the technological changes. We would have to finish, moderator, because the president of Estonia is about to make his remarks here in this room.

Ernst Noorman: Okay. Then… So, great to have a timekeeper. We have indeed two minutes, but I’m afraid it’s too short for another question and then responses. What are my concluding remarks is that this discussion is still so especially relevant on how to involve multistakeholder. We also have to look, I think, at what do we mean all with multistakeholders? How do we balance the different voices in the multistakeholder model? And also, right now, if you look at the AI discussion, it’s more and more about competition. Who will be the winner? And well, as Isabel, amongst others, said, you know, AI is there to serve society and humanity. And how do we ensure that? And just lately, just these days, you can hear even in Europe, calls to pause the EU AI Act because of competition reasons. I think that’s not the good way to go. Regulation is also there to protect our society. And so far, we have seen often that regulation can even improve innovation by creating a level playing field. So, in that sense also, we have to fight and see how we can continue to involve the multistakeholders in all levels of the discussion. So, let’s go for that. And again, also, Rasmus, I want to thank you and lots of success in your continued work for the next six months as the chair of the FOC. And thank all panelists for your contributions. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach is essential for effective Internet governance and AI governance

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Gitanjali Sah
– Isabel Ebert
– Jan Gerlach
– Dan York

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach must be inclusive, participatory, and consensus-driven involving public sector, private sector, civil society, technical community, and academia

WSIS Plus 20 provides opportunity for multi-stakeholder dialogue to include all voices in the UN General Assembly review process

Making rules inclusive requires expanding participation beyond states to include affected communities in AI governance decisions

Civil society input is critical for internet governance success, but their access to these processes is under threat

Technical communities bring essential expertise while civil society provides knowledge about impacts on vulnerable populations

Summary

All speakers strongly advocate for inclusive multi-stakeholder participation in Internet and AI governance, emphasizing that effective governance requires input from diverse actors including governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, and academia

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Human rights framework should be central to digital governance and AI development

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Gitanjali Sah
– Isabel Ebert
– Thibaut Kleiner

Arguments

Freedom Online Coalition provides coordinated response through multi-stakeholder format

Universal Declaration of Human Rights featured prominently in original WSIS outcome documents

Human rights framework should serve as common minimum denominator for ethical approach to technology

European Union’s declaration on digital rights and principles puts people and rights at center of digital transformation

Summary

Speakers agree that human rights principles should be the foundational framework for digital governance, with rights-based approaches being essential for ethical technology development and deployment

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Need for transparency, accountability and inclusion in AI governance

Speakers

– Isabel Ebert
– Jan Gerlach
– Dan York

Arguments

Need transparent rules matching pace of AI development with benefits shared across nations and risks thoughtfully managed

Blueprint for information integrity supports individual agency through literacy, privacy, safety and transparency

Open standards and protocols are needed for AI transparency, explainability, and accountability

Summary

Speakers emphasize the critical importance of building transparency, accountability mechanisms, and inclusive participation into AI governance frameworks to ensure responsible development and deployment

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Digital divides and connectivity challenges must be addressed

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Thibaut Kleiner
– Dan York
– Participant

Arguments

Need more cross-sectoral work and best practices sharing across countries and stakeholders

EU supports projects engaging with Africa and Latin America to promote public debate about digital technology challenges

One-third of world (2.6 billion people) still lacks internet access, and AI development risks deepening digital divide

Technical institutions like ISOC, IEEE, IGF need to enhance regional coordination and support national chapters to complement state member efforts

Summary

Speakers recognize that significant portions of the global population remain unconnected and that digital divides risk being deepened by AI development, requiring coordinated efforts to bridge these gaps

Topics

Development | Digital access

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the responsibility of private sector actors in ensuring ethical AI development, with Ebert focusing on companies building human rights into products and Gerlach highlighting the need to support communities that create the data used to train AI systems

Speakers

– Isabel Ebert
– Jan Gerlach

Arguments

Companies must build human rights into their products and services following UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

Good AI governance requires supporting communities who curate and verify information that feeds AI systems

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive, cross-sectoral approaches to AI governance that respect local contexts while maintaining universal principles

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Thibaut Kleiner

Arguments

AI governance must be cross-sectoral, looking across health, agriculture, education with overarching ethical framework

Human rights approach is universal and should be bottom-up, owned by local constituencies rather than imposed

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize the foundational role of open, collaborative approaches in building Internet infrastructure, with York focusing on technical standards and Gerlach on civil society contributions

Speakers

– Dan York
– Jan Gerlach

Arguments

Internet’s success built on open standards, open protocols, and innovation without permission principle

Civil society builds large parts of internet including digital public goods that Global Digital Compact aims to support

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Unexpected consensus

Resistance to centralized state control over Internet governance

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Dan York
– Jan Gerlach

Arguments

Need to resist attempts to overturn distributed multi-stakeholder Internet governance model and prevent expansion of state control

Concern about proprietary, closed AI systems creating vendor lock-in and concentrated power

Civil society input is critical for internet governance success, but their access to these processes is under threat

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged around concerns about centralization of power, whether by states or private actors, with speakers from different backgrounds (government, technical community, civil society) all expressing concerns about threats to distributed governance models

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

AI systems should serve society rather than drive technological determinism

Speakers

– Isabel Ebert
– Ernst Noorman

Arguments

Need to shift debate to asking what kind of societies we want AI to help build rather than just adapting to AI

Competition concerns should not override regulation designed to protect society and create level playing fields

Explanation

Unexpected alignment between human rights advocate and government representative on rejecting technological determinism and prioritizing societal needs over competitive or technological imperatives

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around core principles of multi-stakeholder governance, human rights-centered approaches, and the need for inclusive, transparent AI governance. Speakers consistently emphasized the importance of maintaining distributed governance models while addressing digital divides and ensuring ethical technology development.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles with broad agreement across different stakeholder groups (government, international organizations, civil society, technical community) on the need for rights-based, inclusive approaches to digital governance. This strong alignment suggests potential for coordinated action in WSIS Plus 20 processes and beyond, though implementation challenges remain around balancing innovation with protection and ensuring meaningful participation of all stakeholders.

Different viewpoints

Approach to AI regulation and competition concerns

Speakers

– Ernst Noorman
– Thibaut Kleiner

Arguments

Competition concerns should not override regulation designed to protect society and create level playing fields

European Union’s declaration on digital rights and principles puts people and rights at center of digital transformation

Summary

While both support regulation, Noorman explicitly argues against pausing AI regulation for competition reasons, while Kleiner focuses on the EU’s regulatory approach without addressing the competition vs. regulation tension

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Scope and focus of multi-stakeholder engagement

Speakers

– Dan York
– Isabel Ebert

Arguments

Technical communities bring essential expertise while civil society provides knowledge about impacts on vulnerable populations

Making rules inclusive requires expanding participation beyond states to include affected communities in AI governance decisions

Summary

York emphasizes the distinct roles of technical communities and civil society, while Ebert focuses more broadly on expanding participation to affected communities beyond traditional stakeholders

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Institutionalization vs. flexibility in governance structures

Speakers

– Thibaut Kleiner
– Dan York

Arguments

Internet Governance Forum should become permanent UN institution with own budget and director for ongoing discussions about emerging technologies

Need to balance protecting against harms while ensuring continued innovation

Explanation

Kleiner advocates for formal institutionalization of the IGF, while York emphasizes maintaining the internet’s tradition of ‘innovation without permission’ and warns against proliferation of formal mechanisms that could hinder participation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkable consensus on core principles (multi-stakeholder governance, human rights protection, AI ethics) but reveals nuanced differences in implementation approaches and priorities

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most differences are complementary rather than contradictory, focusing on different aspects of the same challenges. The main tensions arise around balancing formal regulation with innovation flexibility, and different emphases on technical vs. social approaches to governance. These disagreements reflect healthy diversity in problem-solving approaches rather than fundamental conflicts, which could strengthen overall policy development if properly integrated.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the responsibility of private sector actors in ensuring ethical AI development, with Ebert focusing on companies building human rights into products and Gerlach highlighting the need to support communities that create the data used to train AI systems

Speakers

– Isabel Ebert
– Jan Gerlach

Arguments

Companies must build human rights into their products and services following UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

Good AI governance requires supporting communities who curate and verify information that feeds AI systems

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive, cross-sectoral approaches to AI governance that respect local contexts while maintaining universal principles

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Thibaut Kleiner

Arguments

AI governance must be cross-sectoral, looking across health, agriculture, education with overarching ethical framework

Human rights approach is universal and should be bottom-up, owned by local constituencies rather than imposed

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize the foundational role of open, collaborative approaches in building Internet infrastructure, with York focusing on technical standards and Gerlach on civil society contributions

Speakers

– Dan York
– Jan Gerlach

Arguments

Internet’s success built on open standards, open protocols, and innovation without permission principle

Civil society builds large parts of internet including digital public goods that Global Digital Compact aims to support

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder Internet governance model is under threat and must be defended against attempts to expand state control, particularly in the WSIS Plus 20 review process

AI governance requires a cross-sectoral, human rights-based approach with transparency, accountability, and inclusion as core principles

The digital divide is deepening as 2.6 billion people remain unconnected while AI development accelerates, risking further marginalization of offline populations

Civil society participation in Internet governance processes is critical but increasingly threatened, requiring protection and enhancement of their access

Open standards and protocols are essential for AI systems to ensure transparency, explainability, and accountability, avoiding proprietary lock-in

Human rights framework should serve as the common minimum denominator for ethical technology development, with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights providing guidance for corporate responsibility

Information integrity requires supporting communities that curate and verify information used to train AI systems, including projects like Wikipedia

Regional and international cooperation must focus on bottom-up, locally-owned approaches to human rights rather than top-down imposition

Resolutions and action items

Freedom Online Coalition member states to work together to take advisory network feedback into account in their national positions for WSIS Plus 20

Make the Internet Governance Forum a permanent UN institution with its own budget and director

Develop concrete recommendations to complement both the WSIS Plus 20 process and FOC’s ongoing efforts to uphold Internet freedom

Support civil society organizations through smart policies and funding to sustain trustworthy information ecosystems

Ensure multi-stakeholder involvement is maintained in the Open-Ended Working Group on responsible state behavior in ICTs

Continue providing platforms for multi-stakeholder dialogue through WSIS Forum and IGF processes with remote participation and regional accommodation

Unresolved issues

How to effectively balance different voices within the multi-stakeholder model and define what constitutes meaningful multi-stakeholder participation

Whether current international human rights frameworks are adequately equipped to respond to rapid AI evolution

How to prevent AI development from deepening existing inequalities while maintaining innovation momentum

How to connect the remaining 2.6 billion unconnected people and ensure their knowledge contributes to AI training data

How to balance protecting against AI harms while preserving the ‘innovation without permission’ principle that enabled Internet success

How to resist calls to pause AI regulation for competition reasons while maintaining technological leadership

How to ensure meaningful participation of affected communities who cannot physically attend governance forums

How to develop AI standards for transparency and accountability across all layers of the AI stack

Suggested compromises

Integrate multi-stakeholder involvement into multilateral forums rather than replacing multilateral approaches entirely

Use incentive-based stimulus packages alongside regulation to encourage responsible AI development

Focus on creating dialogue and promoting discussion with international partners rather than imposing human rights views from outside

Accommodate civil society participation through remote access and regional time zone considerations when physical attendance is not possible

Leverage existing national and regional Internet Governance Forums (180 worldwide) as venues for broader participation rather than creating new mechanisms

Build on existing WSIS framework and action lines that already incorporate human rights principles rather than starting from scratch

We cannot overcome the challenges without the meaningful engagement of all shareholders. We need coordinated response… We must adopt a strong common approach to ensure the protection of the Internet’s decentralized model. Efforts to impose centralized control threaten to undermine the Internet’s fundamental openness, risking fragmentation and compromising the very attributes that have made the Internet a catalyst for progress and innovation.

Speaker

Rasmus Lumi

Reason

This comment was insightful because it framed the entire discussion around a fundamental tension between centralized state control versus decentralized multi-stakeholder governance. It established the stakes of the conversation – that the very nature of internet governance is under threat and requires active defense.

Impact

This opening comment set the tone for the entire discussion, with subsequent speakers repeatedly returning to themes of multi-stakeholder engagement, the importance of inclusive governance, and resistance to state control. It created a sense of urgency that permeated all following contributions.

Instead of asking how do we adapt AI, we should ask what kind of societies do we want AI to help us build and which accountability structures for different actors and their distinct role can incentivise this.

Speaker

Isabel Ebert

Reason

This comment was particularly thought-provoking because it fundamentally reframed the AI governance debate from a reactive to a proactive stance. Rather than adapting to AI’s development, it suggested we should first define our societal goals and then shape AI to serve those purposes.

Impact

This reframing influenced subsequent speakers to focus more on human-centered approaches. It shifted the discussion from technical adaptation to values-based design, with later speakers like Jan Gerlach emphasizing that ‘the internet really must serve’ people and Dan York discussing ‘innovation without permission’ as a core principle.

Civil society, the people who use the internet, also build large parts of the internet… They build the digital public goods that the Global Digital Compact aims to support… Take Wikipedia as an example… To ensure such projects can continue to thrive, these people, through civil society organizations, need to have a voice at the table of Internet governance processes.

Speaker

Jan Gerlach

Reason

This comment was insightful because it challenged the typical framing of civil society as merely users or beneficiaries of technology, instead positioning them as active builders and creators of internet infrastructure. It highlighted an often-overlooked contribution of civil society to the digital ecosystem.

Impact

This comment deepened the discussion by adding a new dimension to multi-stakeholder engagement – not just consultation but recognition of civil society as infrastructure builders. It influenced the moderator’s later observation about balancing different voices in the multi-stakeholder model and added weight to arguments for meaningful civil society participation.

A third of the world is still not connected. There’s 2.6 billion people who do not have access to the internet… We’re, in fact, with some of what we’re doing, we are deepening the digital divide. Because those of us who have access to the AI tools and systems that we’re all using, we are able to be more productive… And we’re leaving the folks who are offline further behind.

Speaker

Dan York

Reason

This comment was particularly thought-provoking because it introduced a sobering reality check about digital inequality in the context of AI advancement. It highlighted how technological progress can paradoxically worsen existing inequalities rather than solve them.

Impact

This comment brought a critical equity lens to the discussion that had been somewhat abstract until this point. It grounded the conversation in concrete numbers and consequences, influencing the moderator’s concluding remarks about ensuring AI serves society and humanity rather than just competition.

Right now, if you look at the AI discussion, it’s more and more about competition. Who will be the winner?… AI is there to serve society and humanity. And how do we ensure that?… Just these days, you can hear even in Europe, calls to pause the EU AI Act because of competition reasons. I think that’s not the good way to go.

Speaker

Ernst Noorman (Moderator)

Reason

This concluding comment was insightful because it crystallized a key tension that had been building throughout the discussion – the conflict between competitive economic interests and societal protection. It directly challenged the prevailing narrative that regulation hinders innovation.

Impact

As a concluding comment, this synthesized many of the discussion’s themes and provided a clear call to action. It reinforced the human rights-centered approach advocated by earlier speakers and positioned regulation as an enabler rather than inhibitor of beneficial innovation.

Overall assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by establishing a clear narrative arc from problem identification to solution frameworks. Lumi’s opening created urgency around defending multi-stakeholder governance, Ebert’s reframing shifted focus to proactive, values-based AI development, Gerlach’s contribution elevated civil society from beneficiaries to builders, York’s reality check grounded the discussion in equity concerns, and Noorman’s conclusion synthesized these themes into a call for human-centered rather than competition-driven approaches. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a technical policy discussion into a more fundamental conversation about power, values, and the future of digital governance. The progression showed how individual insights can build upon each other to deepen collective understanding and create momentum for action.

How can we work together to prevent AI technologies from deepening existing inequalities?

Speaker

Ernst Noorman

Explanation

This was identified as a key area to explore in the session introduction, focusing on ensuring AI doesn’t exacerbate current social and economic disparities

Are current international and human rights frameworks equipped to respond to the rapid evolution of AI?

Speaker

Ernst Noorman

Explanation

This question addresses whether existing legal and regulatory frameworks are adequate for governing rapidly advancing AI technologies

How do children know about their rights online, and are schools educating them properly?

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah

Explanation

This highlights the need for better digital literacy and rights education for children in the context of online safety and governance

Do we have the right governance structures and guidelines for parents and educators regarding children’s online rights?

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah

Explanation

This identifies a gap in support systems for adults responsible for children’s digital wellbeing and education

What kind of societies do we want AI to help us build, and which accountability structures can incentivize this?

Speaker

Isabel Ebert

Explanation

This reframes the AI governance debate from technical adaptation to societal vision and appropriate accountability mechanisms

How can we enhance regional coordination offices and support national office chapters of organizations like ISOC?

Speaker

Riyad Abathia

Explanation

This addresses the need for stronger local and regional representation in internet governance processes, particularly for civil society participation

How do we balance different voices in the multistakeholder model?

Speaker

Ernst Noorman

Explanation

This fundamental question about multistakeholder governance seeks to understand how to ensure equitable representation and influence among different stakeholder groups

How do we ensure AI serves society and humanity rather than just competition and economic interests?

Speaker

Ernst Noorman

Explanation

This addresses the tension between commercial AI development focused on competition versus AI development that prioritizes societal benefit

What standards can be developed for AI transparency, explainability, and accountability across all layers of the AI stack?

Speaker

Dan York

Explanation

This identifies the need for comprehensive technical standards that ensure AI systems are transparent and accountable at every level of their operation

How can we connect the 2.6 billion people who still lack internet access to prevent deepening digital divides in the AI era?

Speaker

Dan York

Explanation

This highlights the urgent need to address basic connectivity issues to prevent AI from further marginalizing already disconnected populations

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the concept of “enhanced cooperation” in internet governance as part of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 20-year review process. The moderator, Konstantinos Komaitis from the Atlantic Council, guided four experts through an examination of this controversial topic that has persisted for two decades since the 2005 Tunis Agenda.

Dr. David Souter provided historical context, explaining that enhanced cooperation emerged from contentious negotiations at WSIS sessions in Geneva and Tunis, particularly around the governance of critical internet resources and the relationship between ICANN and the U.S. government. The Tunis Agenda defined it as enabling governments “on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet.” Dr. Peter Major, who chaired the first UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) working group on enhanced cooperation, noted that consensus proved elusive, with working groups in 2013-14 and 2016-18 unable to finalize recommendations due to persistent disagreements about scope and objectives.

Jimson Olufuye, representing the private sector perspective, argued that the 2016 IANA transition largely resolved the original concerns and that CSTD already provides an adequate forum for discussing internet-related public policy issues. He emphasized the private sector’s preference for using existing structures rather than creating new institutions. Anriette Esterhuysen from the Association for Progressive Communications acknowledged that while the original ICANN oversight concerns have diminished, new issues like artificial intelligence governance have emerged, and power asymmetries between nations remain significant.

The discussion revealed ongoing disagreements about implementation, with some participants advocating for CSTD as the appropriate venue while others called for enhanced mandates or new mechanisms. Despite two decades of debate, the concept remains contested, though panelists suggested focusing on the original Tunis Agenda definition and working within existing multilateral frameworks rather than creating separate institutions.

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

This panel discussion was part of the WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) 20-year review process, aimed at examining the concept of “enhanced cooperation” in internet governance – a controversial topic that has persisted for two decades since the 2005 Tunis Agenda. The goal was to reflect on lessons learned and determine how to move forward with this concept in today’s digital landscape.

## Major Discussion Points

– **Historical Context and Definition Challenges**: Enhanced cooperation emerged from the 2005 Tunis Agenda as a compromise solution to address governments’ desire for equal participation in international public policy issues related to the internet, while excluding day-to-day technical operations. Despite being defined in the Tunis Agenda, the concept has remained contested and poorly understood for 20 years.

– **Failed Consensus-Building Efforts**: Two UN working groups (2013-2014 and 2016-2018) under the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) attempted to operationalize enhanced cooperation but failed to reach consensus due to persistent disagreements about scope, objectives, and institutional arrangements, with some requiring 100% consensus blocking progress.

– **Impact of IANA Transition**: The 2016 IANA transition, which ended U.S. government oversight of critical internet resources, significantly changed the enhanced cooperation landscape. While some argued this resolved the main issue that sparked enhanced cooperation, others maintained that many international public policy issues still require governmental coordination.

– **Institutional Framework Debates**: There’s ongoing disagreement about whether enhanced cooperation needs new institutions or can work within existing frameworks like CSTD. The private sector and some stakeholders prefer using existing structures to minimize costs and complexity, while others argue for enhanced mandates or new mechanisms.

– **Evolving Stakeholder Perspectives**: The discussion revealed shifting attitudes over time, with greater acceptance of multi-stakeholder approaches even among governments that initially opposed them, and recognition that enhanced cooperation and multi-stakeholder governance can be complementary rather than competing approaches.

## Overall Tone

The discussion began with a scholarly, historical tone as panelists provided background context. The tone became more animated and sometimes contentious when participants shared personal experiences from the original negotiations and disagreed about interpretations. Toward the end, the tone shifted to be more pragmatic and forward-looking, with participants seeking practical solutions for the WSIS+20 process, though underlying tensions about power dynamics and institutional arrangements remained evident throughout.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Konstantinos Komaitis** – Senior Resident Fellow with the Atlantic Council, Panel Moderator

– **David Souter** – Managing Director of ICT Development Associates Limited, Dr.

– **Peter Major** – Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, Dr., Former chair of the first working group on Enhanced Cooperation within CSTD

– **Jimson Olufuye** – Principal Consultant and Founder and Chair of Afikta Advisory Council in Nigeria, Private sector representative

– **Anriette Esterhuysen** – Senior Advisor on Global and Regional Internet Governance for the Association for Progressive Communications, Ms.

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Vladimir Minkin** – Representative from Russia, participated in previous Enhanced Cooperation meetings

– **Juan** (mentioned by other speakers) – Appears to be a participant who was present during the Tunis negotiations and WGIG group

# Enhanced Cooperation in Internet Governance: A Comprehensive Analysis from the WSIS+20 Review Process

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion, moderated by Konstantinos Komaitis from the Atlantic Council, formed part of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 20-year review process, focusing specifically on the contentious concept of “enhanced cooperation” in internet governance. The session brought together panelists to examine this controversial topic that has persisted for two decades since the 2005 Tunis Agenda, with the overarching goal of determining how to move forward with enhanced cooperation in today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape.

The discussion was structured around three guiding questions: what enhanced cooperation means in the current context and how this should be reflected in the WSIS+20 outcome; how existing mechanisms facilitate enhanced cooperation in practice; and what gaps or opportunities exist for improvement.

## Historical Context and Definitional Challenges

Dr. David Souter, Managing Director of ICT Development Associates Limited, provided comprehensive historical context, explaining that enhanced cooperation emerged from highly contentious negotiations during the WSIS sessions in Geneva and Tunis. The concept arose particularly from disputes around the governance of critical internet resources and the relationship between ICANN and the U.S. government. The Tunis Agenda ultimately defined enhanced cooperation as enabling governments “on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet,” whilst explicitly excluding day-to-day technical coordination.

However, this definition has proven insufficient to resolve underlying disagreements. As Dr. Souter noted, the concept has remained contested and poorly understood throughout its 20-year existence, with fundamental questions about scope, objectives, and implementation mechanisms continuing to divide stakeholders.

Dr. Souter’s historical account was notably challenged by a Cuban audience member who claimed to have been present during the actual Tunis negotiations. The Cuban representative provided specific details about how the concept was created by UK diplomat David Hendon as a compromise solution to resolve deadlock between different governmental positions. According to this account, “David Hendon from the UK came up with this concept of enhanced cooperation” as a way to bridge the gap between those wanting intergovernmental control and those supporting the existing multistakeholder model.

This historical disagreement highlighted the persistent ambiguity surrounding enhanced cooperation’s origins and intentions. The Cuban intervention suggested that enhanced cooperation was fundamentally a political compromise rather than a well-defined governance concept, which may explain why it has remained so difficult to operationalise over the subsequent two decades.

## Working Group Experiences and Lessons Learned

Dr. Peter Major, who chaired the first UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) working group on enhanced cooperation, provided detailed insights into the attempts to operationalise the concept. The first working group (2013-2014) successfully identified seven clusters of international public policy issues but ultimately could not reach full consensus on recommendations. The second working group (2016-2018) similarly failed to finalise recommendations due to persistent differences about scope and objectives.

Dr. Major’s analysis revealed a crucial insight about the consensus-seeking approach itself. He argued that “we cannot work in a consensus way” and suggested that working groups should instead “reflect different opinions, different options, and without making a ranking among the recommendations.” This represented a fundamental challenge to traditional international negotiation approaches, suggesting that the pursuit of consensus may actually be counterproductive when dealing with such politically sensitive issues.

The working group experiences demonstrated that whilst technical discussions could proceed productively—with the first group successfully mapping international public policy issues—political disagreements about institutional arrangements and power distribution remained intractable. Dr. Major noted that some participants required 100% consensus, effectively giving veto power to any single stakeholder and blocking progress on recommendations that had broad but not universal support.

## Impact of the IANA Transition

A significant development that changed the enhanced cooperation landscape was the 2016 IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) transition, which ended U.S. government oversight of critical internet resources. Both Dr. Major and Jimson Olufuye acknowledged that this transition addressed one of the primary concerns that originally motivated enhanced cooperation discussions.

However, speakers disagreed about the implications of this change. Olufuye argued that the IANA transition largely resolved the main issue and that enhanced cooperation now simply means “improving cooperation regarding management of critical internet resources, which is already being done well.” In contrast, other speakers maintained that whilst the ICANN oversight issue had diminished in importance, many other international public policy issues still required governmental coordination.

Anriette Esterhuysen from the Association for Progressive Communications noted that whilst the original ICANN concerns had become less pressing, new challenges had emerged: “What has changed is what the priority issues or what the concerns are… At the time in 2005, ICANN and the oversight of ICANN by the U.S. government was a major concern. That is not as major a concern… But for example, what is done about AI and decisions about how governments and intergovernmental processes and decisions should impact on AI, that is a major concern.”

## Divergent Stakeholder Perspectives

### Private Sector Optimism

Jimson Olufuye, representing the private sector viewpoint, presented an optimistic assessment of current progress. He argued that “previous opposition to CSTD as the venue has largely evaporated, with near-consensus (99.9%) supporting this approach.” From his perspective, CSTD already possesses the mandate to handle international public policy issues related to the internet and should serve as the natural home for enhanced cooperation.

The private sector position emphasised pragmatism and resource efficiency. Olufuye stressed that “the private sector opposes creating new structures due to limited resources and prefers working within existing frameworks.” This perspective reflected broader private sector concerns about the proliferation of governance mechanisms and the associated costs and complexity of participating in multiple forums.

### Civil Society Concerns About Power Asymmetries

Ms. Esterhuysen provided a more critical analysis that directly challenged the optimistic assessments. She recognised that the original ICANN oversight concerns had diminished but emphasised that “power asymmetries remain at the root of enhanced cooperation needs and cannot be ignored.” Her perspective highlighted that enhanced cooperation fundamentally addresses “the need for governments with fewer resources to participate more equally in internet governance decisions.”

Esterhuysen’s contribution was particularly significant in refusing to allow the discussion to become depoliticised. She argued that ignoring power asymmetries was “either naive or Machiavellian or some kind of very unhelpful combination of both.” This intervention prevented the conversation from becoming overly technical or procedural, keeping focus on the underlying political dynamics that make enhanced cooperation both necessary and difficult to implement.

She also provided a constructive framework for moving forward, suggesting that “enhanced cooperation and multistakeholder approaches should be viewed as separate but complementary legitimate processes that can reinforce each other.”

## Institutional Framework and CSTD’s Role

There was broad agreement that CSTD should serve as the institutional home for enhanced cooperation rather than creating new structures. However, speakers disagreed about whether CSTD’s current mandate was sufficient or required enhancement.

Olufuye argued that CSTD already possessed adequate authority, whilst others suggested that a resolution might be needed to formally expand CSTD’s mandate beyond WSIS follow-up and review to explicitly include enhanced cooperation responsibilities. This disagreement reflected deeper questions about whether enhanced cooperation required new formal mechanisms or could be achieved through existing processes.

## Constructive Suggestions for Moving Forward

### Utilising Previous Work

An important intervention came from Vladimir Minkin, who questioned why 12 recommendations from previous enhanced cooperation meetings had been forgotten and not utilised. He specifically asked: “Why these 12 recommendations are forgotten? Why we don’t use them?” This highlighted a recurring problem in international processes where valuable preparatory work is abandoned when consensus cannot be achieved, rather than being built upon in subsequent efforts.

### Reframing the Concept

Wolfgang, an audience member, offered a constructive reframing of enhanced cooperation as “enhanced communication, collaboration, coordination between state and non-state actors.” This definition moved away from the historical baggage associated with the concept towards a more practical, operational understanding focused on improving cooperation rather than resolving political disputes.

This reframing suggested using “enhanced cooperation as a positive concept to enhance communication, to enhance coordination… and not to go back to the battles of the past.” Such an approach could potentially break the cycle of historical grievances that had prevented progress on implementation.

### Practical Implementation Approaches

Esterhuysen proposed that “UN agencies, General Assembly, and other multilateral bodies should report on how they enable government participation on equal footing in internet-related public policy,” with these reports being integrated into the CSTD review process. This approach would create a systematic record of enhanced cooperation activities without requiring new institutions.

## Persistent Disagreements and Fundamental Tensions

Despite two decades of discussion, fundamental disagreements persisted throughout the panel. Olufuye’s optimistic assessment of near-consensus was directly challenged by the continued contestation evident in the discussion itself. His narrow technical interpretation of enhanced cooperation contrasted sharply with Esterhuysen’s broader focus on power asymmetries and equal participation.

The discussion also revealed disagreement about how to proceed with implementation. Major advocated for abandoning consensus-seeking and presenting multiple viewpoints equally, whilst Olufuye claimed consensus had been achieved, and others suggested utilising previously agreed recommendations rather than starting over.

Perhaps most fundamentally, speakers disagreed about whether enhanced cooperation should acknowledge and address power asymmetries (Esterhuysen’s position) or focus on technical coordination mechanisms (Olufuye’s approach). This disagreement reflected deeper tensions about the political versus technical nature of internet governance.

## Questions About WSIS Efficacy

An important question was raised by Chris about whether the contested nature of enhanced cooperation has undermined the overall efficacy of WSIS. This question highlighted concerns that the inability to resolve enhanced cooperation debates may have broader implications for the WSIS process and its credibility as a framework for addressing digital governance issues.

## Implications for the WSIS+20 Process

The discussion revealed both opportunities and challenges for addressing enhanced cooperation in the WSIS+20 review. On the positive side, there appeared to be some convergence on institutional arrangements, with broad acceptance of CSTD as the primary venue. The recognition that multistakeholder approaches had gained broader governmental acceptance also created new possibilities for progress.

However, the persistence of fundamental disagreements about scope, implementation status, and approaches to power asymmetries suggested that enhanced cooperation remained as politically contentious as ever. The optimistic assessment that consensus had been achieved was directly contradicted by the persistent disagreements evident in the discussion itself.

## Conclusion

After 20 years of debate, enhanced cooperation remains a contested concept that reflects deeper tensions in global internet governance. Whilst the IANA transition addressed one major original concern, new challenges such as artificial intelligence governance have emerged, and fundamental power asymmetries between nations persist.

The discussion demonstrated that whilst some progress has been made—particularly in terms of institutional arrangements and the evolution of governmental attitudes towards multistakeholder processes—core political disagreements remain unresolved. The concept’s origins as a political compromise may inherently limit its effectiveness as a governance mechanism.

The most constructive path forward may involve building on previous work rather than starting from scratch, utilising existing institutional frameworks like CSTD, and potentially reframing enhanced cooperation as a positive concept focused on improving communication and coordination among all stakeholders. However, success will require acknowledging both the political realities that gave rise to enhanced cooperation and the persistent power asymmetries that continue to drive the need for more equitable participation in internet governance decisions.

The WSIS+20 process provides an opportunity to move beyond historical debates towards more practical approaches, but the discussion revealed that fundamental tensions about power, participation, and governance in the global digital ecosystem remain as relevant today as they were two decades ago.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Good morning, everyone, and welcome. It’s great to see so many of you waking up for this exciting topic of enhanced cooperation. My name is Konstantinos Koumaitis. I am a senior resident fellow with the Atlantic Council, and I will be moderating this excellent panel. So we are here to, of course, discuss… We are here because the WSIS is the 20-year review, and as part of this review, we are thinking of different things, and one of those things is this concept of enhanced cooperation, which has stayed with us for 20 years through thick and thin, and it has been a bit controversial. However, here we are discussing it, and we have an opportunity right now to actually go back and reflect and think what we have learned from those past 20 years of conversations and how we can move forward. And in order to do that, we have an excellent panel, which I’m going to introduce right now. So to my right, further right, Dr. David Souter. He is the Managing Director of ICT Development, Associates Limited. Then to my left, Dr. Peter Major. He is the Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Right to my left, Dr. Jim Sun. I’m sorry for mispronouncing your surname, Olufoye. He is the Principal Consultant and Founder and Chair of Afikta Advisory Council in Nigeria, and of course, last but not least, Ms. Henriette Esterhuizen. She’s the Senior Advisor on Global and Regional Internet Governance for the Association for Progressive Communications. So before we go and we hear their interventions, which I will please ask all of you to keep them short, six, seven minutes max, I would like to pose three guiding questions that I would like our panelists and you to think as we keep discussing this issue for the next 40 minutes approximately. The first one is, what does enhanced cooperation mean today in a rapidly evolving digital landscape, and how should this be reflected in the WSIS Plus 20 outcome? How do existing mechanisms such as forums, partnerships, or policy platforms facilitate enhanced cooperation in practice? And what are the gaps or opportunities for improvement in the WSIS Plus 20 process? And finally, how can the WSIS 20 review process foster a shared understanding of enhanced cooperation among diverse stakeholders? And with that in mind, David, I will turn first to you. If you can please give us a little bit

David Souter: of a historical context of enhanced cooperation. Thank you. So that is indeed what I’ve been asked to do, Konstantinos. So I’ll give a historical account of the enhanced cooperation in the WSIS process, and I’ll quote from relevant documents in doing so. As we all know, internet governance was a subject of contention at both WSIS sessions in Geneva and Tunis. And as everyone here will know, the Tunis agenda, which concluded the second session in 2005, addressed the subject at considerable length. So I’ll begin with that context. First, the agenda adopted a working definition of internet governance, and I’ll quote that. The development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective roles. of Shared Principles, Norms, Rules, Decision Making, Procedures and Programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. And it recognized that that includes, again I’m quoting, both technical and public policy issues and that it should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. It recognized, quoting again, the need to maximize the participation of developing countries in decisions regarding Internet governance as well as in development and capacity building. And it pointed out the importance of national, regional and international dimensions. It recognized the multi-stakeholder character of Internet governance and the various responsibilities of different stakeholder groups, including governments. It recognized that the Internet is a highly dynamic medium and that Internet governance framework should be inclusive and responsive to its rapid evolution. And it recognized that there were, and here again I’ll quote directly, many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms. So the significant and public policy issues that were identified in paragraph 58 of the agenda include, again I’m quoting, inter alia critical Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet and developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet. And others were identified in the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance, which met between the two sessions. So to paragraph 68, 69, sorry, of the Tunis agenda, which reads as follows. We recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future to enable governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact on international public policy issues. I’m quoting these things because I think it is useful to have them directly in mind in a discussion around this. The agenda did not define Enhanced Cooperation further, but paragraph 70 added that it should include, again, a quote, the development of globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical internet resources. So the management of critical internet resources, especially the relationship between Ayanna, ICANN and the U.S. government, had been a particular point of contention during the summit. So that’s at the summit start, and I’ll move on to subsequently. Over the years since the summit, there have been a number of initiatives that have sought to interpret and develop the concept of Enhanced Cooperation, while the range of issues affected by the internet and the number of international organizations and fora that are concerned with those issues has multiplied. The UN Secretary General carried out informal consultations in 2006 with internet-related organizations, including those established internet governance bodies, and that was followed by an open consultation in 2010 and an open meeting at the UN itself. And the subject was extensively discussed during that period in other fora, including the IGF. I think it was clear from the consultations and discussions around those initial processes that there were divergent views about two broad issues. The first about the range of international public policy issues pertaining to the internet, which was referred to in the Tunis agenda, and second about the nature and modalities of the Enhanced Cooperation that might be appropriate. So some contributions to discussions then and since have considered broad themes of digital development and the relationship between multilateral and multi-stakeholder dimensions of internet governance, and others have understood the concept more narrowly, concerned in particular with the governance of critical internet resources and ways in which these were addressed by the IANA transition in 2016. A consultation was held by the UN Commission The Commission on Science and Technology for Development, CSTD, in 2012, and that was followed by two working groups of the Commission. The first of those in 2013-14, and Peter Major will be talking about these in a moment. The first in 2013-14 sought to identify international public policy issues on the Internet and classified those in seven clusters, which were concerned with infrastructure and standardization, security, human rights, legal economic development, and sociocultural themes, sought to do that classification. Although consensus was reached in some areas, its report concluded, I’m quoting again here, there was significant divergence of views in a number of other issues. The complexity and the political sensitivity of the topic did not allow the group to finalize a set of recommendations on fully operationalizing enhanced cooperation. So that outcome was noted in the WSIS Plus 10 report adopted by the General Assembly in 2015. And the General Assembly in that WSIS Plus 10 agreement called on CSTD to organize a further working group, which was convened between 2016 and 2018. That discussed a number of proposed guiding principles to be considered when developing international Internet-related public policy, and some potential modalities and institutional arrangements concerned with those. But it also concluded that it could not finalize a set of recommendations. I’ll quote from that, in the light of persistent differences, including in regard to what should be the nature of the objectives and the scope of the process towards enhanced cooperation. So the concept and approaches to enabling enhanced cooperation have had diverse interpretations in terms of their scope, in terms of potential modalities, and the extent to which they have been implemented since the summit. Finally, and I’ll end with this, the resolution adopted by the CSTD in April this year, and forwarded to to the Echo Sock where it is at present, reaffirmed the Secretary General’s role to pursue the outcomes of the World Summit related to internet governance, including both Enhanced Cooperation and the IGF, recognizing that these may be complementary, and noted the outcomes from the working groups that I’ve just mentioned, that is the consensus was reached in some areas, but it was not possible to achieve it in others. So I hope that helps to frame the discussion.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you very much, David. Peter, we heard from David, there were two working groups on Enhanced Cooperation within the CSTD. You were the chair of the first working group, but you also followed the conversations on the second one. What lessons have we learned? What was, what, take us a little bit back in time and tell us what happened during those times.

Peter Major: Thank you. Thank you, Konstantinos. David gave a very good background with full of references to the Tunis agenda. I’m not going to do that. Well, the first working group was set up in a multi-stakeholder format, the second one as well. Basically, what I learned from that, that we cannot work in a consensus way. So a working group should work in the way the WGIC used to work. It should reflect different opinions, different options, and without making a ranking among the recommendations, or making ranking among the different opinions. The first working group did a very good job. We had a questioner concerning enhanced cooperation. We received a lot of responses to the questioner. We have. H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter H.E. Ms. Suela Janina, H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter and that is the lesson I learned. We agreed not to shoot for consensus but to reflect every opinion, every approach on an equal footing. So basically to answer your question, to me that was the main important thing. However, as it was mentioned by David, in 2016 we had the IANA transition concerning the enhanced cooperation, which was one of the main reasons of enhanced cooperation. And with the IANA transition, this reason just kind of disappeared. And people said, OK, let’s do away with the enhanced cooperation. We don’t need it anymore. Other people said, no, no, no, we do need it. And there are a lot of issues which we should discuss and the governments should have a say and they should have a forum where they can sit down and discuss it on an equal footing. Yes, there are a lot of issues. We have the cybersecurity issues. We have the autonomous weapon issues. We have e-commerce issues naturally. And there are four of our governments can discuss it. Whether this is enough or not, I’m not to judge it. In my mind, it may be enough. We have a lot of places where you can discuss it, including the ITU Council. and Dr. David Souter, H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter, H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, so probably not in a complex way but separately different issues. So probably it may be desirable to have some kind of coordination, what’s going on. So I’ll stop here, thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you, Peter. Jimson, may I just turn to you please? You’ve been in this space for quite a long time, representing the private sector as part of the private sector community. How do you understand the concept of enhanced cooperation? What does it mean, you think, for the private sector?

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you very much. Okay, thank you very much, Constantino, and greetings everyone. Let me begin by appreciating DESA for this program, this session. In fact, I’ve heard before that don’t discuss enhanced cooperation anymore, we don’t want to go to that. So I was wondering why. So when I saw that we’re going to have a discussion, I said, yes, why not? Let’s discuss it. Because from our perspective, enhanced cooperation, so just look at the definition, enhanced, to improve on cooperation, just improve on the cooperation. Simply improve on the cooperation with regard to management of the critical internet resources, which is being done pretty well. At least as Dr. Peter Major mentioned, the IANA transition settled that October 1st, 2016. and H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter Because that time, there was a proposal on the table that, okay, since internet public policy issue is a subset of international public policy issue, then whichever organization is already handling international public policy issue should be responsible for enhanced cooperation as defined in paragraph 68 to 71 of the Tunis Agenda, and looking critically, CSTD already has that mandate. CSTD already has mandate to have purview over international public policy issue. Are you talking about cyber security? Is it about development issue, intellectual property? Whatever it is that is connected to the issue of internet matters pertaining to the internet can be discussed at CSTD. It’s still part of science and development issue. As a majority of us agreed, and I can see some of us that were in opposition before, we all agreed, majority, and only one country said no, unless we have a new organization set up, maybe with its own building, to discuss this issue. And we don’t want the new structure. In the private sector, we have little resources. We don’t have all unlimited resources. We have limited resources, and we want to be able to minimize expenses. And so, it is not in our interest to begin the new setting of structure for enhanced cooperation. We agree that CSTD is the home for and Dr. David Souter. They are the founders of the A.N.C.E. Corporation. That is from private sector perspective, at least from Africa. And the opposition was there because we were looking for 100% consensus, so people said it did not work, it did not succeed. I didn’t agree with that. The working group succeeded. The first working group chair did very well. So, intelligently and wisely, and the majority agreed, 99.9% that we should move forward with CSTD as the home of enhanced cooperation. But one person objected. But I could see since 2018, January 2018 when we concluded, that same country has now embraced the multi-stakeholder engagements and equal footing for all stakeholders and even hosted IGF. To the surprise of many, I was shocked when the country hosted us and we all did very well. They did an excellent job of hosting all stakeholders. I was really impressed. And I made sure that I was there to see, to witness it. And I witnessed it. So, the point is, from 2018 to now, the opposition to 100% consensus, I think has evaporated. So, I could take it that we already have the consensus that the enhanced cooperation should work within the framework of CSTD, even though the chair said, yes, it’s happening elsewhere. In April, I also did my best to attend CSTD, the last session, just to see what is going on. And then, I was impressed to see that the government on equal footing, they are debating and they are doing exactly what is there in Paragraph 68 to 71. They even had to vote on an issue, which I never witnessed before. So, they voted and they agreed that this is the resolution. Why didn’t we do this that time, 2018?

Anriette Esterhuysen: They will vote and then we will have this stuff. But we have learned. But the private sector, too, we are giving free hands. H.E. Mr. Ekitela Lokaale, Dr. David Souter What has changed is what the priority issues or what the concerns are. Or how governments feel about the institutional mechanisms that are needed to facilitate that. I think that has changed dramatically. As David has said, at the time in 2005, ICANN and the oversight of ICANN by the U.S. government was a major concern. That is not as major a concern. Maybe it should become one again because governments change, but that has stopped being a priority concern. But for example, what is done about AI and decisions about how governments and intergovernmental processes and decisions should impact on AI, that is a major concern. But that ability for governments who have fewer resources, the ability to not participate in multiple spaces at the same time, to feel more empowered, it’s never going to go away. Not unless we wake up tomorrow and the world is not one that is primarily defined by massive power asymmetries. I think it still excludes technical coordination. I think that is in the Tunis agenda. I think that is good. I think there is so much fear about what this means that I think the fear by particularly global north governments and by private sector actors and technical community actors that enhanced cooperation is going to open up governmental destruction of the multistakeholder. At the beginning of the session, several governments who demanded enhanced cooperation were also very ambivalent about the multistakeholder approach. I think that has shifted. I think there’s much more acceptance of the multistakeholder approach as a viable and valuable way of working in Internet governance. There’s much more understanding that one can in fact even strengthen multilateral decision making processes through building multistakeholder participation in. In fact, that can be enhanced. The cybercrime treaty, for example, I see as an illustration of enhanced cooperation, but it could have had much more multistakeholder engagement even if it was an intergovernmental process. So I think that has shifted as well. And I think for me, the opportunity at the moment is to be able to talk about enhanced cooperation and the multistakeholder approach, but separately as two legitimate processes that actually can really reinforce and strengthen one another and help facilitate digital cooperation at a geopolitical moment when we need it more than we’ve needed it for a very long time.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you, Henriette, and thank you all for your interventions. We have around 17 minutes for questions and or comments. Please, may I just ask you, because I see a lot of you wanting to speak, be short and crisp. And yeah, I’m going to take two, three questions right now. President of the Cuban Government. How many of you were in Tunis in the room where this

Audience: was discussed and enhanced cooperation created? In the room in Tunis, in the negotiation? You were during the negotiation? I doubt it, because that was only governmental, what we’re doing here. So for you, if you really want to know what enhanced cooperation and how it came out, I’m sorry, David, it has nothing to do with Geneva. In Tunis, that was the day before the summit began, and it was in the negotiation in a drafting group that was headed by the Pakistani Human Rights Council. Well, I don’t want to make it short. There’s an excellent book that was published by the APC, and the responsible of that was the diplomat David Hendon of the UK, who was the president of the European Union in that day. He explained how he came with that concept. He’s the real intellectual author. Read the article, page 184 of the APC book. Read it. It’s interesting. It’s like a detective novel, because you see how it is. Just in a nutshell, Henriette was totally right. Enhanced cooperation was a result of a very hard bargain compromise in the negotiations, because there was a group that was coordinated by Benedito Fonseca from Brazil of like-minded groups that wanted what is written in Article 35 of the Tunis agenda in the subsection A. that government has, I will try to read it, sovereign rights over international policy issues pertaining to the internet. So the question is, how are we going to implement this? And the basis is from the WIEGE group, that by the way, I was also in the WIEGE group, in which we defined, as you say, the internet governance, the principle, all the agreement, but the institutional arrangements were always the contentious. And as Peter said, very wisely in the WIEGE group, we didn’t go for one, we got four proposals, or three, because two are very similar. So that came to Tunis. And so we have the principles that government need to have exert that sovereign right. We also acknowledge the multistakeholder nature, that’s what was the proposition of internet governance. But then there was the problem of how to implement this right that government had. There was no consensus, it was impossible to get a consensus. And that is very written here. So the solution is to recognize the right of governments, and to say, and in the other hand, to create this multistakeholder IGF, and that the implementation of that right in the mechanism will be this enhanced cooperation that will be open for the next six months to that. So I’m sorry, Jim, so this has not happened. But what you said, it has some merit. And also what H.E. Ms. Suela Janina says, the nutshell of enhanced cooperation now is the need for an intergovernmental space in the architecture of WSIS. And it could be a new thing. We don’t believe that we create a new thing. But it may be the CSTD. But the mandate of CSTD, then we have to be enhanced. Because nowadays, the mandate of the CSTD is only follow up and review of WSIS.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you. I’m sorry. You need to wrap up because really we have, we’re running out of time. To do, as Handiet very rightly said about intergovernmental space. And second, that’s the truth without discussion.

Audience: You can check the people that were there, who was there, that’s the truth. I was also seeing the documents of Tunis agenda. And the second truth, that that has not been implemented. As many have said, the geopolitical conditions have tried to say that implemented. Of course, it may be in the IP, in the internet critical resources, but the definition of internet government says that it’s a wide one. Sorry to, thank you. Chris and Wolfgang, and then we can just react. Chris, Wolfgang, please be sure. Thank you. Sorry, okay, thank you. I’ll be brief here. So thank you to all of you for the insights on this. And with all respect to Jimson’s optimism about how close we are to consensus on this, I think it’s clear that it’s at the very least a contested idea and has been for two decades now. So staring down the barrel of the WSIS 20 year review, I guess the question I have is to any and all of you, what do you think has been the impact on the efficacy of the WSIS project in having such an ill-defined or contested concept at its very heart? Has that undermined the work that we’ve actually been trying to do and achieve with the WSIS? Thanks, Chris. Wolfgang, please. We all know that David Hinton tried to bring. fire and water under one umbrella. And it worked for the moment, but we should not forget this has a, I would call it, a rather destructive political component and a constructive component to enhance cooperation is a good thing. You know, a couple of years after Tunis, we used an academic gathering in one of the schools of internet governance and tried to define what enhanced cooperation could be from an academic point of view. And we said, you know, enhanced cooperation is enhanced communication, collaboration, coordination between state and non-state actors. So, and I think this is really covers everything, including what Juan just said. So that certainly the governance need a space where they can communicate among each other on equal footing, but this is embedded in a multi-stakeholder environment. And I think we should really use the enhanced cooperation as a positive concept to enhance communication, to enhance coordination. So, and not to go back to the battles of the past, which is over with this leads us to nowhere. But unfortunately, I heard yesterday from some governments, they want to go back and oversight and control will surveillance is on the agenda also for the coming negotiation versus plus 10. We should be prepared for this. Thank you.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you. Quick reflections. I know, Andreette, you want to say something and then I will go to a second round of questions, but please, Andreette, why don’t you start? Um, thanks. I think, I think we already, it’s so fascinating how in the responses,

Anriette Esterhuysen: people are already not actually willing to accept that there is actually quite a clear definition for the people that put that on the table in the first place. It’s like, and depoliticizing the root of enhanced cooperation, which is and Dr. David Souter. Thank you. So, let’s start with the question of multistakeholder spaces. You know, in the way that ICANN has created the GAC to create a space for governments to have a particular voice and influence, can we also create spaces in other multilateral or multistakeholder processes? And then, similarly, where we have these multilateral decision-making processes, can we use multistakeholder approach, the Net Mundial guidelines, for example, to make sure that there’s more equal participation among governments in those spaces? But ignoring that… There are power asymmetries at the root of this is, it’s, I don’t know, it’s either naive or Machiavellian or some kind of very unhelpful combination of both.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you. Thank you, H.E. Ms. Suela Janina. Jameson, can you, please.

Jimson Olufuye: Yeah, just very quickly to Joanne. You said CSC, they only have the mandate for follow-up. I think to tackle that, it should be easy. It’s just, I think a resolution can handle that. If there is a resolution proposed that CSC which also handles the enhanced cooperation stuff, would that not happen? And you can put it to a vote. And I believe many will, to scale through this time around because it is not 100% consensus we’re looking for. So, and that can be scaled to ECOSOC and to GA. And that is a good issue. Thank you. Okay, so we literally have six minutes. It’s the last round of questions. I want you to be very brief in your interventions. Anna, we go first, then to the gentleman and then back there. Please, Anna, go ahead.

Audience: Thank you. Thank you, Konstantinos. And thank you, sir. I fully appreciate the history of all of this. I was not there in Tunis or Geneva, but I’m very keen in terms of the forward-looking aspect because we’re going into this, we are in the WSIS plus 20 review. So I would like to understand what in the panel’s view, what can we make of this today that is workable within the institutions that are already there? Because I think with everything going on, there’s not gonna be any new institutions happening. And to actually make this work positively also through the perspective of the net mondial guidelines as Henriette referenced. So what is the way forward? Thank you, Anna. Please be brief because we also have some… Yes, thank you. Thank you very much, Vladimir Minkin, Russia. Could I ask you who participated in the last nine sessions from the Benedictine for Enhanced Cooperation meeting? Yes. If you remember, we practically agreed 12 recommendations. The only point was when we proposed in the beginning, say, a reaffirmed conforming Tunis agenda, especially 35, it was not disagree with that. And what is pity? Not only that we did not have agreement in spite of the very close, but these 12 recommendations everybody forget. But they exist. Why not to use them? And the other important point, what happened? It was intention not to take into account the role and especially obligations of states, of governments. Only governments have responsibility under their citizens. Don’t forget that, please. When we fully agree, multi-stakeholder, but in our right and obligations. That taken into account, I think we should consider that in December. Thank you very much, sir. Please be brief. You can come in front and use one of the microphones. Good morning, colleagues, and thank you all panelists. Actually, briefly, we cannot say, it’s not a good reason we say we have open-ended working group or something like that, so we don’t need an institution or a special framework for enhanced cooperation.

Jimson Olufuye: to undo that. And CSTD is a home I’ve seen where all the stakeholders can participate freely and the mechanism can be set up there to ensure it works smoothly. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thank you, Gibson. Henriette? Thanks. I think there’s some consensus here. I think firstly we need to acknowledge it and agree on, instead of fighting about what it means, just use the Tunis agenda because I think the Tunis agenda is pretty clear, which is not everyone wants to read the words in the language that they intended. So I think agree on that definition and affirm that it does not include technical coordination, the day-to-day technical coordination. That language is there in the Tunis agenda. It needs to be emphasized and stressed. And secondly, I think I agree with Peter, no separate body, but let’s create it. The thing is once we’ve acknowledged that we agree on the definition, that it is about governments being able to participate on a more equal footing and public policy related to the internet, then we can actually start inviting UN agencies, the General Assembly, other bodies, regional bodies within the multilateral system to report on how they are actually enabling it. That can go into the CSTD review process. It will give us a record of what is happening and governments will be able to comment on whether they feel it’s efficient or not. I would use that as a starting point. And I think that’s very doable once we actually get over that inability to actually agree on what its intention and definition

Konstantinos Komaitis: is. Thank you very much. I would like to thank all four of you for making your interventions and all of you for waking up in the morning and coming to this session. Thank you so much. Bye. © 2012 University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences UGA Extension Office of Communications and Creative Services

Agreement points

Enhanced cooperation should not include day-to-day technical coordination

Speakers

– David Souter
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

The Tunis Agenda defined enhanced cooperation as enabling governments on equal footing to carry out roles in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, excluding day-to-day technical matters

Implementation should involve UN agencies and other bodies reporting on how they enable government participation on equal footing

Summary

Both speakers emphasized that enhanced cooperation explicitly excludes technical coordination and day-to-day operational matters, as clearly stated in the Tunis Agenda

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

CSTD should be the institutional home for enhanced cooperation rather than creating new structures

Speakers

– Peter Major
– Jimson Olufuye
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Audience

Arguments

Working groups should reflect different opinions equally rather than seeking consensus, similar to how the WGIG operated

CSTD already has the mandate to handle international public policy issues related to the internet and should be the home for enhanced cooperation

Implementation should involve UN agencies and other bodies reporting on how they enable government participation on equal footing

Governments need an intergovernmental space within the WSIS architecture, which could be CSTD with enhanced mandate

Summary

Multiple speakers agreed that CSTD provides the appropriate institutional framework for enhanced cooperation, avoiding the need for new structures while potentially requiring mandate enhancement

Topics

Legal and regulatory

The IANA transition in 2016 resolved a major original concern driving enhanced cooperation

Speakers

– Peter Major
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

The IANA transition in 2016 addressed one major concern that originally drove enhanced cooperation discussions

Enhanced cooperation simply means improving cooperation regarding management of critical internet resources, which is already being done well

Summary

Both speakers acknowledged that the IANA transition significantly addressed one of the primary concerns that originally motivated enhanced cooperation discussions

Topics

Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers support working within existing institutional frameworks rather than creating new structures, though from different perspectives – resource efficiency for private sector and institutional complementarity for civil society

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

The private sector opposes creating new structures due to limited resources and prefers working within existing frameworks

The concept should be separated from but complementary to multistakeholder approaches, with both being legitimate processes

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Both emphasized the value of previous working group efforts and the importance of reflecting diverse opinions rather than forcing consensus, suggesting that valuable work has been done that shouldn’t be discarded

Speakers

– Peter Major
– Audience

Arguments

Working groups should reflect different opinions equally rather than seeking consensus, similar to how the WGIG operated

The 12 recommendations from previous working groups should be revisited and utilized rather than forgotten

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Multistakeholder approach acceptance by governments

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

The concept should be separated from but complementary to multistakeholder approaches, with both being legitimate processes

Previous opposition to CSTD as the venue has largely evaporated, with near-consensus (99.9%) supporting this approach

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus that governments who previously opposed multistakeholder approaches have become more accepting of them, with even countries that initially objected now embracing multistakeholder engagement and hosting IGFs

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Practical definition clarity despite historical contention

Speakers

– David Souter
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Audience

Arguments

The Tunis Agenda defined enhanced cooperation as enabling governments on equal footing to carry out roles in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, excluding day-to-day technical matters

Implementation should involve UN agencies and other bodies reporting on how they enable government participation on equal footing

Enhanced cooperation should be defined as enhanced communication, collaboration, and coordination between state and non-state actors in a multistakeholder environment

Explanation

Despite 20 years of contention, there was unexpected consensus that the Tunis Agenda actually provides a clear enough definition that can be operationalized, with speakers agreeing to use existing language rather than continuing definitional debates

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed significant convergence around using existing institutional frameworks (particularly CSTD), accepting the Tunis Agenda definition, excluding technical coordination, and recognizing that multistakeholder approaches have gained broader acceptance even among previously skeptical governments

Consensus level

Moderate to high consensus on institutional mechanisms and definitional clarity, with implications that enhanced cooperation may be more implementable now than in previous decades due to reduced opposition and clearer understanding of scope and limitations

Different viewpoints

Definition and scope of enhanced cooperation

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Audience

Arguments

Enhanced cooperation simply means improving cooperation regarding management of critical internet resources, which is already being done well

Enhanced cooperation addresses the need for governments with fewer resources to participate more equally in internet governance decisions

Enhanced cooperation should be defined as enhanced communication, collaboration, and coordination between state and non-state actors in a multistakeholder environment

Summary

Olufuye views enhanced cooperation narrowly as technical cooperation on critical internet resources that is already functioning well, while Esterhuysen sees it as addressing broader power asymmetries and enabling equal government participation. An audience member proposed a more comprehensive definition encompassing all stakeholder coordination.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Whether enhanced cooperation has been successfully implemented

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– David Souter
– Audience

Arguments

Previous opposition to CSTD as the venue has largely evaporated, with near-consensus (99.9%) supporting this approach

The second working group (2016-18) also failed to finalize recommendations due to persistent differences about scope and objectives

The concept has remained contested and ill-defined for 20 years, potentially undermining the efficacy of the WSIS project

Summary

Olufuye claims near-consensus has been achieved and implementation is proceeding through CSTD, while Souter’s historical account shows persistent failures to reach agreement, and audience members note the concept remains contested after 20 years.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Approach to achieving consensus in working groups

Speakers

– Peter Major
– Jimson Olufuye
– Audience

Arguments

Working groups should reflect different opinions equally rather than seeking consensus, similar to how the WGIG operated

Previous opposition to CSTD as the venue has largely evaporated, with near-consensus (99.9%) supporting this approach

The 12 recommendations from previous working groups should be revisited and utilized rather than forgotten

Summary

Major advocates for abandoning consensus-seeking and presenting multiple viewpoints equally, while Olufuye claims consensus has been achieved, and audience members suggest utilizing previously agreed recommendations rather than starting over.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Historical accuracy and interpretation of Tunis negotiations

Speakers

– David Souter
– Audience

Arguments

Enhanced cooperation emerged from contentious negotiations at WSIS Tunis in 2005, particularly around internet governance and ICANN oversight

Enhanced cooperation was a compromise solution created by UK diplomat David Hendon to resolve deadlock between different governmental positions on internet governance

Explanation

An audience member who claimed to be present during the Tunis negotiations challenged David Souter’s historical account, arguing that Souter was not in the actual negotiation room and providing specific details about how the concept was created by David Hendon as a compromise. This disagreement over historical facts was unexpected as it questioned the credibility of the expert panel’s historical narrative.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Optimism versus realism about current consensus

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Audience

Arguments

Previous opposition to CSTD as the venue has largely evaporated, with near-consensus (99.9%) supporting this approach

The concept has remained contested and ill-defined for 20 years, potentially undermining the efficacy of the WSIS project

Explanation

Olufuye’s optimistic assessment of near-consensus was directly challenged by an audience member who questioned whether such optimism was realistic given the 20-year history of contestation. This disagreement was unexpected because it directly contradicted the private sector representative’s positive outlook with a more skeptical assessment of progress.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed fundamental disagreements about the definition, scope, implementation status, and future direction of enhanced cooperation. Key areas of disagreement included whether enhanced cooperation should be understood narrowly (technical coordination) or broadly (addressing power asymmetries), whether consensus has been achieved or remains elusive, and what institutional mechanisms are needed.

Disagreement level

Moderate to high level of disagreement with significant implications. While speakers agreed on using existing institutions rather than creating new ones, they fundamentally disagreed on the nature of the problem enhanced cooperation is meant to solve and whether progress has been made. This suggests that after 20 years, the concept remains as contested as ever, potentially undermining efforts to implement it effectively in the WSIS+20 process. The disagreements reflect deeper tensions between different stakeholder groups and their varying perspectives on internet governance power structures.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers support working within existing institutional frameworks rather than creating new structures, though from different perspectives – resource efficiency for private sector and institutional complementarity for civil society

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

The private sector opposes creating new structures due to limited resources and prefers working within existing frameworks

The concept should be separated from but complementary to multistakeholder approaches, with both being legitimate processes

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Both emphasized the value of previous working group efforts and the importance of reflecting diverse opinions rather than forcing consensus, suggesting that valuable work has been done that shouldn’t be discarded

Speakers

– Peter Major
– Audience

Arguments

Working groups should reflect different opinions equally rather than seeking consensus, similar to how the WGIG operated

The 12 recommendations from previous working groups should be revisited and utilized rather than forgotten

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Enhanced cooperation emerged from 2005 WSIS Tunis negotiations as a compromise solution to enable governments to participate on equal footing in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, excluding day-to-day technical matters

The concept has remained contested and ill-defined for 20 years, with two CSTD working groups (2013-14 and 2016-18) failing to reach full consensus on implementation recommendations

The IANA transition in 2016 addressed one major original concern driving enhanced cooperation discussions, changing the landscape of the debate

There is growing acceptance that CSTD should serve as the institutional home for enhanced cooperation rather than creating new structures

Enhanced cooperation and multistakeholder approaches should be viewed as separate but complementary legitimate processes that can reinforce each other

Power asymmetries between governments remain at the root of enhanced cooperation needs and cannot be ignored in discussions

The private sector generally opposes creating new institutional structures due to resource constraints and prefers working within existing frameworks

Resolutions and action items

Use the existing Tunis Agenda definition of enhanced cooperation rather than continuing to debate what it means

Emphasize that enhanced cooperation excludes day-to-day technical coordination as specified in the Tunis Agenda

Invite UN agencies, General Assembly, and other multilateral bodies to report on how they enable government participation on equal footing in internet-related public policy

Integrate these reports into the CSTD review process to create a record of enhanced cooperation activities

Consider enhancing CSTD’s mandate through resolution if needed to formally include enhanced cooperation responsibilities

Revisit and utilize the 12 recommendations from previous working groups rather than abandoning them

Unresolved issues

Whether CSTD’s current mandate is sufficient or needs formal enhancement to handle enhanced cooperation

How to achieve consensus on enhanced cooperation implementation given persistent disagreements over scope and objectives

The specific mechanisms and procedures for operationalizing enhanced cooperation within existing institutions

How to balance intergovernmental spaces for enhanced cooperation with multistakeholder participation

Whether the changing geopolitical landscape and new issues like AI governance require different approaches to enhanced cooperation

How to address the fundamental power asymmetries that drive the need for enhanced cooperation

Suggested compromises

Accept CSTD as the institutional home for enhanced cooperation while allowing for multistakeholder participation

Focus on enhancing existing institutions rather than creating new ones to address resource constraints

Separate enhanced cooperation from multistakeholder approaches while recognizing both as legitimate and complementary processes

Use working group approaches that reflect different opinions equally rather than seeking full consensus

Create spaces within multilateral processes for more equal government participation similar to ICANN’s GAC model

Apply multistakeholder guidelines to multilateral decision-making processes to ensure more equal participation among governments

We cannot work in a consensus way. So a working group should work in the way the WGIC used to work. It should reflect different opinions, different options, and without making a ranking among the recommendations, or making ranking among the different opinions.

Speaker

Peter Major

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the traditional approach to international negotiations by suggesting that seeking consensus may actually be counterproductive. It introduces a paradigm shift from trying to find common ground to accepting and documenting diverse viewpoints equally.

Impact

This insight reframed the entire discussion about why enhanced cooperation efforts have stalled. It moved the conversation from ‘how to achieve consensus’ to ‘how to work productively without consensus,’ influencing subsequent speakers to consider alternative approaches to the deadlock.

Enhanced cooperation was a result of a very hard bargain compromise in the negotiations… So the solution is to recognize the right of governments, and to say, and in the other hand, to create this multistakeholder IGF, and that the implementation of that right in the mechanism will be this enhanced cooperation that will be open for the next six months to that.

Speaker

Juan (Audience member)

Reason

This comment provides crucial historical context that reveals enhanced cooperation as a political compromise rather than a well-defined concept. It exposes the fundamental tension between governmental sovereignty and multistakeholder governance that has persisted for 20 years.

Impact

This intervention significantly shifted the discussion by grounding it in historical reality rather than theoretical interpretations. It forced other panelists to acknowledge the political origins of the concept and influenced the conversation toward more pragmatic solutions.

What has changed is what the priority issues or what the concerns are… At the time in 2005, ICANN and the oversight of ICANN by the U.S. government was a major concern. That is not as major a concern… But for example, what is done about AI and decisions about how governments and intergovernmental processes and decisions should impact on AI, that is a major concern.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment brilliantly illustrates how the digital landscape has evolved, making the original concerns about enhanced cooperation less relevant while new challenges have emerged. It demonstrates the dynamic nature of internet governance issues.

Impact

This observation redirected the discussion from historical debates to contemporary relevance, helping participants understand why enhanced cooperation discussions have felt stagnant and what new directions might be more productive.

Enhanced cooperation is enhanced communication, collaboration, coordination between state and non-state actors… And I think we should really use the enhanced cooperation as a positive concept to enhance communication, to enhance coordination… and not to go back to the battles of the past.

Speaker

Wolfgang (Audience member)

Reason

This comment offers a constructive reframing of enhanced cooperation from a contentious political concept to a practical operational approach. It suggests moving beyond historical grievances to focus on functional cooperation.

Impact

This intervention helped shift the tone of the discussion from defensive positions to collaborative possibilities, influencing the final exchanges toward more solution-oriented thinking.

There are power asymmetries at the root of this… ignoring that… There are power asymmetries at the root of this is, it’s, I don’t know, it’s either naive or Machiavellian or some kind of very unhelpful combination of both.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment cuts through diplomatic language to identify the core issue that enhanced cooperation was designed to address – fundamental power imbalances in global internet governance. It challenges attempts to depoliticize what is inherently a political issue.

Impact

This stark assessment prevented the discussion from becoming too sanitized or academic, keeping the focus on the real-world political dynamics that make enhanced cooperation both necessary and difficult to implement.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it through several important phases: from historical analysis to practical lessons learned, from theoretical definitions to political realities, and from past grievances to future possibilities. Peter Major’s insight about abandoning consensus-seeking provided a methodological breakthrough, while Juan’s historical intervention grounded the discussion in political reality. Anriette’s observations about changing priorities and persistent power asymmetries kept the conversation relevant and honest, while Wolfgang’s reframing toward positive cooperation offered a constructive path forward. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a repetitive rehashing of old debates into a more nuanced exploration of how to make progress on a persistently challenging issue. The discussion evolved from explaining why enhanced cooperation has failed to identifying practical ways it might succeed in the current context.

What does enhanced cooperation mean today in a rapidly evolving digital landscape, and how should this be reflected in the WSIS Plus 20 outcome?

Speaker

Konstantinos Komaitis

Explanation

This was posed as one of three guiding questions for the panel discussion to frame the conversation about enhanced cooperation in the current context

How do existing mechanisms such as forums, partnerships, or policy platforms facilitate enhanced cooperation in practice?

Speaker

Konstantinos Komaitis

Explanation

This was the second guiding question to understand how current structures support enhanced cooperation

What are the gaps or opportunities for improvement in the WSIS Plus 20 process?

Speaker

Konstantinos Komaitis

Explanation

This was part of the third guiding question to identify areas needing attention in the review process

How can the WSIS 20 review process foster a shared understanding of enhanced cooperation among diverse stakeholders?

Speaker

Konstantinos Komaitis

Explanation

This was the final guiding question focused on building consensus among different stakeholder groups

What has been the impact on the efficacy of the WSIS project in having such an ill-defined or contested concept at its very heart?

Speaker

Chris

Explanation

Chris questioned whether having enhanced cooperation as a contested concept has undermined the overall WSIS project effectiveness

Has that undermined the work that we’ve actually been trying to do and achieve with the WSIS?

Speaker

Chris

Explanation

This follows up on whether the contested nature of enhanced cooperation has been detrimental to WSIS goals

What can we make of this today that is workable within the institutions that are already there?

Speaker

Anna

Explanation

Anna sought practical solutions for implementing enhanced cooperation within existing institutional frameworks for the WSIS plus 20 review

Could I ask you who participated in the last nine sessions from the Benedictine for Enhanced Cooperation meeting?

Speaker

Vladimir Minkin

Explanation

Vladimir sought clarification about participation in recent enhanced cooperation meetings and questioned why 12 agreed recommendations were forgotten

Why not to use them [the 12 recommendations]?

Speaker

Vladimir Minkin

Explanation

Vladimir questioned why previously agreed recommendations from enhanced cooperation meetings were not being utilized

How can spaces be created in multilateral or multistakeholder processes similar to how ICANN created the GAC for governments?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

Anriette suggested exploring how to create dedicated government spaces in other governance processes, using ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee as a model

How can multistakeholder approaches be used to ensure more equal participation among governments in multilateral decision-making processes?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

This explores how to address power asymmetries in international governance processes through multistakeholder mechanisms

Can a resolution be proposed to expand CSTD’s mandate beyond just follow-up to also handle enhanced cooperation?

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Explanation

Jimson suggested this as a practical solution to address the limitation that CSTD currently only has a mandate for WSIS follow-up and review

Summary

This discussion focused on the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development’s efforts to assess and improve data collection for monitoring digital development goals, particularly in relation to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review, Universal and Meaningful Connectivity, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Esperanza Magpantay from ITU introduced the partnership, which comprises 14 international and regional organizations working together to develop methodologies and build capacity for ICT indicator collection. The partnership has established a core list of over 50 ICT indicators covering infrastructure, access, enterprise use, education, government services, and e-waste, which has been endorsed by the UN Statistical Commission.

The session highlighted ongoing mapping exercises to align these indicators with WSIS action lines, GDC objectives, and meaningful connectivity frameworks. Despite having extensive indicators, significant gaps remain in areas such as employment, health, security, and governance. Representatives from various organizations presented their contributions: UNDESA discussed e-government indicators, ECLAC shared their Digital Development Observatory and Regional AI Index, ESCWA outlined their 85 indicators for measuring digital development, and ILO presented new employment-related ICT indicators focusing on the ICT sector workforce.

Key challenges identified included insufficient funding for data collection, particularly in developing countries, limited technical capacity in national statistical offices, and the need for more disaggregated data to understand digital inequalities. Participants emphasized the importance of incorporating alternative data sources like big data and satellite imagery while maintaining international comparability standards. The partnership aims to finalize its mapping matrix, publish data through ITU’s data hub, and continue building capacity in countries most in need of support for evidence-based digital policymaking.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Mapping ICT indicators to global frameworks**: The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development is conducting a comprehensive mapping exercise to align their 50+ core ICT indicators with WSIS action lines, Global Digital Compact (GDC) objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity goals to identify measurement gaps and areas needing new indicators.

– **Expanding indicator coverage beyond traditional ICT metrics**: Participants identified significant gaps in current indicators, particularly in areas like employment (with ILO proposing new ICT sector employment indicators), health, security, governance, AI usage, and digital platform work that require new measurement approaches.

– **Funding and capacity challenges for data collection**: Multiple speakers emphasized the critical need for sustainable funding mechanisms to support national statistical offices and data collection efforts, particularly in developing countries where the need for data is greatest but resources are most limited.

– **Integration of alternative data sources**: Discussion focused on incorporating innovative data sources like big data, mobile phone data, and satellite imagery to complement traditional surveys, while maintaining international comparability standards through official statistical channels.

– **Strengthening multi-stakeholder coordination**: Emphasis on improving collaboration between national statistical offices, international organizations, regional commissions, civil society, and other stakeholders to enhance data availability, quality, and policy relevance at both national and international levels.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to assess the current state of ICT measurement frameworks and identify how to strengthen data collection and indicator development to support monitoring of major global digital initiatives (WSIS+20, Global Digital Compact, Universal Meaningful Connectivity) while addressing persistent data gaps and capacity challenges.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants demonstrating strong commitment to the partnership’s mission. While speakers acknowledged significant challenges around funding, data gaps, and capacity constraints, the overall atmosphere was solution-oriented and forward-looking, with organizations offering concrete contributions and expressing readiness to take on expanded roles in addressing measurement needs.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Esperanza Magpantay** – Senior statistician at ITU, steering committee member of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development

– **Alexandre Barbosa** – Head of CETIC (research center linked to the Brazilian Networking Information Center, NIC.br and CGI.br)

– **Marco Llinas** – Representative from UN ECLAC (United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean)

– **Scarlett Fondeur** – Works with the e-commerce and digital economy branch of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

– **Participant** – Gembly Camacho, senior monitoring and evaluation specialist at APC (international civil society network)

– **Deniz Susar** – Representative from UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs)

– **Ayman El Sherbiny** – Chief of digital cooperation and digital development in UNESCO (regional commission)

– **Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava** – Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau of the ITU

– **Alison Gillwald** – Representative from Research ICT Africa

– **Michael Frosch** – Works at the Department of Statistics within the ILO (International Labour Organization)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Titi Casa** – Works for the AGI (Agency for Digital Italy) for the Italian government

# Comprehensive Report: Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development Discussion

## Executive Summary

This discussion focused on the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development’s efforts to strengthen global ICT measurement frameworks and address critical data gaps. The session brought together representatives from 14 international organisations to discuss three main themes: mapping existing indicators against major international frameworks (WSIS action lines, Global Digital Compact objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity goals), addressing significant data gaps particularly in employment, health, security and governance areas, and showcasing regional innovations in data collection methodologies. Key outcomes included commitments to complete the mapping exercise, launch an enhanced ITU data hub, and explore new employment-related indicators using existing microdata.

## Partnership Structure and Current Framework

### Organisational Foundation

Esperanza Magpantay from ITU introduced the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development as a collaborative response to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) call for comprehensive ICT indicators. The partnership comprises 14 international and regional organisations, with a steering committee led by ITU, UNCTAD, and UNDESA.

The partnership has developed a core list of over 50 ICT indicators that received endorsement from the UN Statistical Commission. These indicators cover infrastructure development, household and individual access, enterprise usage, educational applications, government services, and electronic waste management. Despite this comprehensive framework, significant gaps remain in areas such as employment, health, security, and governance applications of ICT.

### Current Data Availability

ITU’s 2024 stocktaking exercise revealed that while internet access at home and usage indicators are widely collected globally, significant gaps exist in ICT skills indicators, mobile ownership data, ICT expenditure measurements, and barriers to internet use. This assessment provides the foundation for prioritising future indicator development and capacity building efforts.

## Key Questions and Framework Alignment

### Guiding Questions for Strengthening Measurement

Cosmas Zavazava from ITU posed four critical questions that framed the discussion:

1. How to strengthen national statistical offices and improve international coordination

2. The role of alternative data sources including big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data

3. Better mapping of ICT indicators against international frameworks

4. Translating data into actionable insights for national digital strategies

### Mapping Exercise Initiative

A central focus was the partnership’s ongoing mapping exercise to align existing indicators with three major international frameworks: WSIS action lines, Global Digital Compact (GDC) objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity goals. This systematic alignment aims to identify measurement gaps and guide future indicator development priorities.

Magpantay explained that this mapping process involves detailed analysis of each indicator’s relevance to specific action lines and objectives, creating a comprehensive matrix to guide future development. The exercise is particularly important given the recent adoption of the Global Digital Compact and the ongoing WSIS Plus 20 review process.

### WSIS Plus 20 Review Context

Deniz Susar from UNDESA highlighted the significance of the WSIS Plus 20 review, noting that it acknowledges the lack of established targets for many action lines and requests proposals for comprehensive monitoring frameworks. The review process has created momentum for strengthening measurement frameworks, with documents like the Compromiso de Sevilla explicitly recognising the importance of financing data availability for evidence-based policymaking.

## Regional Contributions and Innovations

### Latin American Leadership

Marco Llinas from UN ECLAC presented their Digital Development Observatory, which incorporates over 100 indicators following partnership standards. ECLAC has developed a Regional AI Index called “ILIA” covering 19 countries, demonstrating innovative approaches to measuring emerging technology adoption. This regional framework serves as a model for combining global standards with regional priorities.

### Middle Eastern and African Approaches

Ayman El Sherbiny from ESCWA outlined their framework of 85 indicators measuring digital development across 22 member states, emphasising primary data collection capabilities through direct country engagement.

Alison Gillwald from Research ICT Africa highlighted critical insights from their household and enterprise surveys, revealing that despite 95-99% coverage in many African countries, less than 20% uptake occurs due to usage barriers not captured in current indicators. This demonstrates the crucial distinction between technical availability and meaningful access. However, she noted concerning funding sustainability challenges, with digital inequality funding being diverted to newer areas, significantly reducing their survey coverage from previously covering 20 African countries.

### Brazilian Innovation and Capacity Building

Alexandre Barbosa from CETIC presented Brazil’s comprehensive approach, including training programmes, capacity building initiatives, and adoption of innovative technologies such as machine learning and big data for official statistics production. Brazil’s digital transformation school and survey methodology workshops demonstrate how countries with advanced capabilities can support regional development.

Brazil is already implementing AI usage indicators in national surveys, positioning them at the forefront of measuring emerging technology adoption. Their multi-stakeholder funding model involves regulators, ministries, and internet registry agencies supplementing national statistical office budgets.

## Critical Data Gaps and Measurement Challenges

### Employment Indicators Gap

Michael Frosch from ILO addressed the employment measurement gap, proposing development of ICT sector employment indicators using existing microdata. His analysis suggested coverage possibilities for 55 countries using 3-digit ISIC level data (2022-2024) and 90 countries using 2-digit level data, demonstrating how existing data infrastructure can address identified gaps without requiring entirely new collection mechanisms.

### Capacity and Resource Constraints

Alexandre Barbosa highlighted the fundamental challenge facing many countries: increasing pressure to produce data across diverse areas while facing technical and skill capacity gaps in implementing required methodologies. This tension between growing demand and limited capacity represents a critical bottleneck in global measurement efforts.

The capacity challenges extend beyond technical skills to include institutional coordination, with many countries lacking effective mechanisms for coordinating data collection across different government agencies and stakeholders.

### Emerging Measurement Areas

The discussion identified several areas requiring new measurement approaches:

– Artificial intelligence usage and impact across different sectors

– Meaningful connectivity beyond basic access measures

– Environmental sustainability aspects of digital development

– Information integrity and digital security measures

## Innovation in Data Sources and Methodologies

### Alternative Data Integration

Cosmas Zavazava emphasised the potential of alternative data sources including big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data to complement traditional survey methods. This approach recognises both the limitations of traditional data collection and opportunities presented by new data sources, particularly in contexts where traditional statistical capacity is limited.

### Technological Advancement in Official Statistics

Brazil’s experience incorporating machine learning and big data into official statistics production provides a concrete example of how traditional statistical offices can evolve while maintaining rigour and international comparability standards.

## Stakeholder Engagement and Participation

### Civil Society Participation

Gembly Camacho from APC asked about civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes. Scarlett Fondeur from UNCTAD’s e-commerce and digital economy branch explained that the partnership works primarily with official statistics producers to ensure international comparability, while acknowledging the importance of broader stakeholder engagement in measurement processes.

### Questions on Measurement Scope

Titi Casa from Italy’s Agency for Digital Italy asked about measurements beyond meaningful access, highlighting the need for indicators that capture the full spectrum of digital experiences and outcomes. Online participants also raised questions about supporting countries facing data collection difficulties.

## Data Platform Development and Access

### ITU Data Hub Launch

Esperanza Magpantay announced the development of an ITU data hub that will host compiled data from all partnership organisations. The platform will feature country dashboards launching in 2025, with upgrades in 2026 including an AI-powered chatbot for enhanced user interaction. A GDC monitoring dashboard is expected soon after the main platform launch.

This centralised platform addresses fragmentation across multiple data sources and will support more comprehensive analysis while reducing the burden on users to navigate multiple platforms.

### Data Quality and Transparency

The partnership’s commitment to publishing available data while conducting quantitative risk assessments demonstrates attention to data quality and transparency. This approach recognises that perfect data should not prevent access to useful data, while maintaining standards for international comparability.

## Future Directions and Commitments

### Immediate Deliverables

The partnership committed to several concrete deliverables:

– Finalising the mapping matrix of indicators against international frameworks

– Launching the ITU data hub with enhanced user features

– ILO’s further exploration of employment-related ICT indicators using existing microdata

### Strategic Priorities

Longer-term priorities include developing sustainable funding mechanisms for regular ICT surveys in developing countries and enhancing coordination between national statistical offices and international organisations. The partnership also aims to develop an indicator framework mandate for the WSIS Plus 20 review to secure political support and resources for enhanced measurement efforts.

### Addressing Sustainability Challenges

The discussion highlighted the need for innovative approaches to resource mobilisation that recognise the public good nature of statistical information while addressing practical funding constraints, particularly in developing countries where data needs are greatest but resources most limited.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated strong collaborative commitment among partnership organisations to improving ICT measurement capabilities globally. While significant challenges remain regarding funding sustainability and capacity constraints, the partnership shows clear potential for addressing critical measurement gaps through coordinated action and innovative approaches.

The commitment to concrete deliverables including the mapping exercise completion and data hub launch provides a foundation for continued progress. The identification of specific gaps in employment, AI usage, and meaningful connectivity offers a clear roadmap for future indicator development. Success will require sustained attention to both technical measurement improvements and the broader resource and capacity challenges that affect measurement capabilities globally.

The partnership’s evolution from basic ICT measurement to addressing complex questions of digital inclusion, emerging technologies, and sustainable development reflects the growing sophistication required in digital development measurement frameworks.

Esperanza Magpantay: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the session organized by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. We are going to start the session, and I’m going to share with you a presentation that will talk about measurement progress relating to the ICT indicators that are needed for the WSIS for the Universal and Meaningful Connectivity and the Global Digital Compact. My name is Esperanza Magpantay, and I’m from the ITU. I’m the senior statistician and one of the steering committee members of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. So those of you who are not familiar with the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development, let me introduce to you the partnership, which was initiated in a direct call from WSIS with regards to improving availability and quality of ICT indicators. And I just saw Mr. Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava entering the room, so we will welcome him for his opening remarks. Mr. Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava is the director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau of the ITU. Over to you, Cosmas.

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I apologize for coming a bit late. I was speaking at another event. Thank you very much for inviting me. It is always a pleasure. I see a lot of friends here, familiar faces, and I would like to welcome you all at Palexpo, and I think we’ll be seeing each other very soon when we have the World Telecommunications Indicators Symposium and also the two expert groups. Over the past decades, the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development has been growing and growing from strength to strength, and this session builds on these achievements. As we enter the second decade of WSIS, in tandem with the outcomes of the Summit of the Future and the broader WSIS Plus initiative, I would like to welcome you to the World Telecommunications 20 review, reliable data and robust statistics have never been more critical. So we wanted to work with a double effort to make sure that we reinforce our efforts towards this, and also that’s why we have started measuring the information, the universal meaningful connectivity, which we thank, of course, the European Union for partnering with us. Crucially, they enable us to gauge progress on the WSIS Action Lines from infrastructure to inclusion, capacity building to e-applications and cyber security, and on the commitments of the global digital compact. Every strategy depends on high quality, timely and comparable data, this you know already. That includes Action Line C2 when ensuring affordable internet access, as well as Action Line C7 on empowering communities through e-services. Without data, we cannot identify where the digital divide exists, nor can we design evidence-based policies to close it. With it, we can have a positive and measurable impact on people’s lives. Today, our discussion must also reflect the SDG imperatives, enabling Goal 4 on education, Goal 5 on gender equality, and I’m pleased to say that there are some regions that are doing very well, they’ve reached parity. The Caribbean, for example, the CIS region, and Europe is doing very well. There are some other regions that need hand-holding and we are ready to do that. We thank also many of our partners, including the ILO, who participated in our global skills development in Bahrain, where together we launched the skills toolkit. Goal 8 on decent work and growth, and Goal 9 on resilient infrastructure, Goal 13 on climate action, and we just recently launched our greening digital report, and we thank the private sector for contributing to this effort, and Goal 17 on partnerships, and I think this partnership is made in heaven. We are doing a… Thank you very much, Dr. Zavazava, and thank you to all of you for joining us today. We have a lot together, and we should continue to sustain it. First, how can we strengthen national statistical offices and international coordination so we improve the frequency, quality, and granularity of ICT data? And second, what role can alternatives like big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data play in complementing traditional data sources? And thirdly, how can we better map core ICT indicators against international development frameworks, including the WSIS Action Lines, the Global Digital Compact, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity, which I referred to earlier on? And fourthly, how do we translate the data into action, ensuring it directly informs national digital strategies and embeds accountability and inclusivity in digital transformation? If we can consider these questions, we can embed data-driven accountability at the heart of the Global Digital Compact and WSIS process. We need all stakeholders to commit to strengthening national statistical systems, including through appropriate financing, to integrating innovative data sources ethically and responsibly, and to ensure data is disaggregated by gender, location, and income in order to design effective targeted interventions for digital inclusion. I invite each of you to contribute your insights and expertise, and I wish you a productive and engaging session. And it is important, of course, for us to recognize that at the base or the foundation of artificial intelligence is data. Without connecting everyone or certain regions or certain groups of countries, like least developed countries, landlocked developing states, and small island developing states, we are limited in terms of the availability of data. So it is important for us to join hands and make sure that together with industry and ITU as over 8,000 private sector industry and academic members, we should join our hands and make sure that we move forward together and make data available so that we can embrace the benefits of artificial intelligence while we effectively confront the ills that come with artificial intelligence. Thank you very much.

Esperanza Magpantay: Thank you very much Mr. Zavazava and with those words I’d like to continue presenting the partnership. So some of you may not be here in previous sessions that we organized during WSIS so I was just describing the partnership on measuring ICT for development which is an initiative that is a direct response to the call of WSIS to produce ICT indicators and data, improve data availability and quality of those ICT indicators. It’s our way of coordinating the work that different international organizations is doing with regards to ICT indicators. Currently we have 14 members comprising of international organizations as well as regional organizations working together to develop methodologies and build capacities in countries. Currently the partnership is led by three agencies through a steering committee ITU, UNCTAD and UNDESA. We have developed the core list of ICT indicators covering many areas and this core list of ICT indicators were endorsed by the UN Statistical Commission so it is recognized by national statistical offices as a list where they can start their data collections. We had conducted a number of workshops and trainings to help countries build their capacity with regards to the collection of those indicators. So you’ll see on the screen the different organizations that are working together in this partnership. So what are included in the core list? ICT indicators. So we have from the ITU, ICT infrastructure and access indicators, and ICT access and use by households and individuals. We have from UNCTAD, ICT access and use by enterprises, ICT sector and trade in ICT goods indicators, UNESCO Institute of Statistics on ICT in education, UNDESA for ICT in government indicators, and UNITAR on e-waste indicators. So this work also on e-waste indicators is in collaboration with the ITU. So currently, there are more than 50 indicators in this core list of indicators. So in today’s session, we would like to explore whether these 50 indicators are enough to measure different goals and targets and global monitoring with regards to, for example, universal and meaningful connectivity, the WSIS action lines, as well as the global digital compact, which all require measurements and data to make sure they can monitor the implementation, as well as monitor progress, identify gaps, and guide policymaking. So currently, the partnership is undergoing a mapping exercise of those 50 indicators, where we are listing each and every indicator that I mentioned earlier against the WSIS targets that was initially defined in the very first events of WSIS, as well as WSIS action lines, and the GDC objectives, as well as universal and meaningful connectivity. So this work, we are hoping to achieve and complete very soon. And the idea here is to basically look at the different goals and targets, as well as make an assessment. on whether these indicators are sufficient to measure and identify all the areas that need to be measured. And so far, what we found out is that although we have more than 50 indicators, there are still a number of areas that need indicators or measurement, particularly on employment, on health, on security, on governance, for example. There’s strong coverage, of course, on ICT access and use, and thanks to colleagues who are around on this table, and we will hear from them with regards to the updates that are happening on those areas. From the ITU side, we continue to collect data and help countries improve data availability with regards to ICT, household and access and use indicators for individuals. And currently, what we found out is that from the stocktaking exercise that we initiated in 2024, that most of the countries that responded to the stocktaking exercise, that internet access at home and internet usage indicators are particularly collected in many countries. However, there’s still a lot of gaps with regards to data availability, particularly for ICT skills indicators disaggregated by type of the activity, as well as indicators that relates to mobile ownership and ICT expenditure, as well as indicators on ICT on internet use barriers. So, those indicators are very important to identify why certain proportion of population is still not using the internet, for example. So, internet barriers is an important indicator. So, the partnership is also working on towards third objective. So the third objective is about dissemination of the data that are collected for those core ICT indicators. And so just recently the ITU and also the different partners who are here agreed to compile the data in a single point where users can see all the data that pertains to the core ICT indicators. It will be hosted in the ITU data hub and the idea here is the indicators will be accessible via a data catalog where they can select the indicators and countries that they want to explore. And country dashboards will also be launched in 2025 and upgraded in 2026. So again the idea here is to help monitor the different goals and targets including the GDC objectives and next year and in the coming months we hope that another dashboard will come and become available to reflect the indicators that will be needed to monitor the GDC. An AI-powered chatbot on the data hub is also expected to be launched very soon that will facilitate the availability and interaction with regards to the different outputs and ICT indicators that will be hosted in the ITU data hub. So this is something that I invite you to look forward to and check as soon as this gets available. In terms of the way forward so we hope to finalize the mapping matrix that will be made available in the partnership website and to identify indicators that are needed to be included in the current core list. We also would like to publish available data as I mentioned in the data hub and conduct a quantitative assessment of the risk and my colleague, Dennis, will talk about this particular point in detail, as well as, of course, the first objective of the partnership. We remain committed to improving data availability, and I’d like to point to the recently concluded financing for development conference that happened in Seville, Spain, where the Compromiso de Sevilla explicitly included different mentions about data and the importance of financing the data availability, improving data availability to help policymaking. So I invite you to check the Compromiso de Sevilla, where you will find several mentions of data and different initiatives that needs to be put in place to make sure data are available. And of course, there’s a lot of new data sources. The ITU and partners has been very active in exploring new data sources, particularly on the use of mobile phone data for the indicators that we are responsible for, and also in other areas where applications of mobile phone big data were proven to be very helpful. There’s a lot of information that I’m not able to cover in this presentation, but I invite you to look at the partnership website and also to listen to the rest of the presentation during this session. Thank you very much, and over to you, Deniz.

Deniz Susar: Thank you very much, Esperanza. Good morning. This is Deniz Susar from UNDESA. I will first raise the paragraphs, the section monitoring and measurement in the elements paper of the WSIS plus 20 overall review by the UNGA. We are serving as the secretariat, and as you know, UN General Assembly is reviewing the progress in the WSIS implementation in the last 20 years, and it will conclude with a high-level meeting in December. If you look at the elements paper, the paragraphs from 82 to 84 is monitoring and measurement. uh the co-facilitators acknowledged that WSIS plus 20 uh WSIS plus 10 10 years ago review didn’t establish targets for the uh for the WSIS however they also acknowledged that there are different uh target indicators available in different fora and now they are asking in paragraph 84 proposals concerning monitoring and measurement which Esperanza mentioned it could be the WSIS action lines but then the co-facilitators as we know based on the UNCTAD resolution trying to integrate GDC and WSIS so maybe it could be a set of indicated action lines that Esperanza showed in the spreadsheet earlier so I think one one idea that could go from here and as partnership we can propose to them is maybe to give the mandate of coming up with this indicators in the resolution that will be adopted end of the year with some timeline ahead because I think the partnership is well positioned to undertake this task of course with the involvement of all agencies and my second point is about our work on ICT in government indicators we will be updating the indicators as instructed by the partnership in the in the spreadsheet our indicators are related to e-government so we look at how national governments and also the cities use technology to deliver public services so this is all part of the UN e-government survey and for the cities we have the local online service index so these will be our contribution from this over to you

Marco Llinas: thank you Deniz Thank you, Esperanza. I introduce myself quickly, Marco Ginaz from UN ECLAC. It’s my pleasure to be attending once again this meeting of the partnership at the WSIS meeting. At ECLAC, we firmly believe that sound, timely, and comparable ICT statistics are foundational to effective policymaking and to measuring progress on digital transformation. So today, let me quickly share two concrete regional initiatives that exemplify our commitment to measurement. First, the ECLAC’s Digital Development Observatory. This is an online open access platform, including ICT-related indicators across Latin America and the Caribbean. The observatory offers up-to-date statistics on connectivity, access, usage, and digital skills, desegregated whenever possible by gender, age, income, and geography. We already have over 100 indicators. We are particularly interested in deepening efforts on measuring usage, and especially digital technology adoption by the productive sector, where initial measurements suggest we have huge gaps. It is worthwhile mentioning that the observatory’s methodology follows international standards set by the partnership, ensuring regional data comparability with global frameworks. And the second initiative is the Regional AI Index, also known as ILIA, which is prepared in conjunction with CENIA, AI National Center of Chile. The ILIA, and we are now preparing its third edition, complements traditional ICT is a professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is a professor of statistics by measuring key aspects of AI ecosystems in 19 countries of the region. Ilia covers three critical dimensions. The first, enabling factors, including infrastructure, connectivity, and human capital. Second, research, development, and adoption, which includes national AI strategies, regulatory frameworks, ethics, and sustainability. Importantly, for ILIA 2025, we are emphasizing the production of innovative indicators that capture emerging and actionable dimensions of AI readiness and adoption. Just to finish, ECLAC reaffirms its commitment to the partnership and to the strengthening of the AI ecosystem. And it looks forward to continuing participating in the partnership. Thank you, Esperanza, and over to Ayman. Ayman.

Ayman El Sherbiny: Thank you so much, Mike. So thank you so much. I will follow up to my colleague, Marco, from ECLAC, and my name is Ayman Elshirbeh. I am the chief of digital cooperation and digital development in UNESCO, another regional commission working with the partnership on measurement since its inception. And we have been some time also active on the steering committee. It is not, I mean, this time is historical challenge for our partnership, especially with the new elements introduced in the GDC. And I’m very glad that it is part of the roadmap that we have to continue our role, especially as regional commissions, in, like, bringing the information and the data from the countries to complement the data that are sent by NSOs. We can have also direct, let us say, primary sources of data through our connections with multiple sectors in our countries. And I’m very glad that it is part of the roadmap that we have to continue our role, especially as regional commissions in, like, bringing the information and the data from the countries to complement the data that are sent by NSOs. And I’m very glad that it is part of the roadmap that we have to continue our role, especially as regional commissions in, like, bringing the information and the data from multiple sectors in our countries. And therefore, we can also contribute to this evolution of whether measuring the GDC objectives or certain elements of it, or measuring the rest of the elements of the WSIS that has been, let us say, not left behind, but put aside for its complexity. So we know the core indicators. We know the, let us say, advancement in them and the evolution of the WSIS. And we still have something to offer. Regarding the digital economy in our region. We have 85 indicators that we use for Measuring digital development across the 22 member states and these 85 indicators Some of them are Row data primary data directly for of countries through reviews. We want to share with you the methodology and Metadata and so on maybe they can become comparable and we can benefit Out of them all of us and of course some of them are part of what you produce so the measurement paradigm itself that we use is we have made like a kind of intersection between all the wishes action lines and All the SDGs in under like five holistic clusters the state the ICT sector Digital economy or the economy and the society The government and and this kind of constellation are five We have underneath them as I said about 85 indicators some of them are going to be measured for the first time and We would like to revise with you the metadata and everything and then we might also work on them globally I’ll give an example for example Issues related to FDI in ICT sector is not measured at all It is difficult, but Torbjorn told me there are solutions for it. So he was working with UNCTAD Also, we can find the the job like And also employment related things Simple things like zero or one like using a common statistical manual for classifying the ICT sector Isaac four for example or whatever in each country. We just need to know zero one. Yes, it is The same manual or not and so on and so forth many things we can fill gaps in digital economy also in certain simple boolean parameters like Strategies existing or not these sectors bla bla bla e x or e y or e z These let us say thematic strategies. We need to know who has what. Other examples also related to this AI index, we need to take it from you now and also to implement it in other regions. So we have a lot to do in the next few months, not a lot, because we need to reflect some kind of convictions in the drafts, not zero of course, but maybe in subsequent ones. So I think we can declare our readiness and our will to undertake as regional commissions the part of the burden of measurement with you and with all the partners for 20 plus or 2026 and beyond. And that is my two cents I have to leave now because we have a meeting in room E for regional commissions on AI governance. And I will leave, of course, Marco, he has committed to stay, but he will also come a little bit earlier to catch up with us. Thank you so much and I have to leave. Thank you. Thank you for giving me the time.

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you very much, Eamon, for giving, expressing once more the support of the regional commissions to the measurement work. We’re going to hear now from the International Labour Organization, ILO, who’s one of the more recent members of the partnership and is advancing work in terms of measurement of employment by digital platforms.

Michael Frosch: Yes, thank you. There we go. Thank you very much. I had some slides, I don’t know, are they, they should be there. OK, let’s see. Oh. Yes, but let me introduce myself to begin with. So, yes. Michael Frosch working at the Department of Statistics within the ILO and as you heard we have recently joined the partnership and I think already now we start to see how fruitful this collaboration is for all of us including the ILO. So I will spend some short time to talk a little bit about the ILO stat and the possibility to create employment related ICT indicators. But first of all a few words about the Department of Statistics within the ILO. So we are working in different areas but all related to the labor market of course. One of the core areas in which we are engaged is in relation to developing statistical standards related to labor statistics and in addition to that developing and providing technical tools and recommendations for data collection which can support countries in the implementation of the labor standards. But beyond that we are also the focal point to the UN in relation to labor statistics and this includes developing and maintaining and updating the ILO stat which is the labor statistical database in which we produce and collect labor market indicators and make them available for users. So the ILO stat is draws from different statistical sources. Household surveys particularly labor force surveys is the key source for us in order to produce our indicators but beyond that we are also using official estimates, administrative sources, establishment based surveys and also statistics from the national accounts and we collect this data through different means. We have automated processes that collect the data from the websites of the statistical offices if they publish them. But beyond that, and that’s probably our most important way of collect data, is that countries are sharing their microdata with us and then we can process it in order to produce our indicators. And finally, for those countries that don’t share data or which we are unable to collect it through automated means, then we are also collecting it through sending out an Excel questionnaire to the countries. So looking into the ILO stat, well, then it covers a wide range of different topics, again, of course, all related to the labor market and labor statistics. The core focus is typically on the labor supply, so that would include indicators relating to the population and labor force, employment and unemployment, and labor underutilization. But beyond that, we are also covering areas such as working conditions, competitiveness, poverty and inequality, industrial relations, as well as other key topics, such as the SDGs that the ILO is host for, as well as child labor and unpaid work. And we are also producing indicators for some selected groups, such as labor migrants, youth, women and volunteers. So the ILO stat includes a broad, broad range of different indicators, and in addition, it also includes the possibility to disseminate these indicators by the use of different characteristics. So this includes demographic characteristics, as well as employment-specific characteristics and other characteristics as well. So the ILO stat is really a flexible tool, I would say. It includes a broad range of indicators for users to use. They can produce their own tables, looking at countries, looking at regions. looking at global estimates and on top of that there’s also the possibility to disseminate these indicators based on on the need of the user. But the ILO stat also includes the possibility due to that we have all this underlying data to create new indicators as well and this would also include the possibility to create employment related ICT indicators and by that maybe fill some of the gaps in the core list of the ICT indicators which was pointed out in the introductory presentation. So in other words based on the available data in the ILO stat it would be a possibility to create employment related ICT indicators and this could for example include an indicator on the proportion of the employed persons in the ICT sector where we define the ICT sector based on the definition already provided in the handbook for the collection of administrative data on telecommunications. So this could be a core indicator that really would reflect well the importance of the ICT sector from the point of view of employment and employment creation and also allow to track the development in terms of trends development over time as well as also enabling cross-country comparison and then in addition it would be possible to do further disaggregation and also to also reflect the characteristics and the structures of the persons and the types of jobs within this sector. So this could include disaggregation by sex, occupation, institutional sector and so on. So one way in which this could be done is to base definition of the indicator on a 3-digit ISIC level which so this would be an indicator that would be in a complete alignment with the definition of the ICT sector as provided in the handbook and it would really capture the proportion of employed persons in the ICT sector out of total employment. Now to create this indicator would require that we would have access to countries three digit level ISIC and it would also require us to produce these indicators based on the microdata that we have received from countries. So if we’re looking at the number of countries for which we would be able to produce these indicators and if we’re looking at it in the period of 2022 to 2024, well then currently we would be able to produce this indicator for 55 countries globally, 12 countries from Africa, 14 in the Americas, three in the Arab states, 20 in Asia and Pacific and six in Europe and Central Asia. And then we could produce these indicators for example twice per year and again we would also be able to disseminate this indicator with additional characteristics. However in addition and as an approach to increase the number of countries for which we could produce an indicator for, it could also be relevant to as well include a kind of a complementary supplementary indicator that has a bit broader definition but that would include an increased number of countries. So that could be a two digit ISIC level based definition. It would of course be less precise but it could still give valuable insights on the size and development of the ICT sectors in terms of employment and this would be an indicator that actually is already available in the ILO stat and then we would be able to produce this indicator for 90 countries globally. So this would really increase the number of countries. So we would then have 24 countries in Africa, 17 in the Americas, 4 in the Arab states, 24 in Asia and the Pacific and 20 in Europe and Central Asia. And of course if we are removing this time limit because this is really just looking back at the two last year but if we’re looking at countries with any available data well then obviously we would increase the number of countries for which we can produce this indicator for so on a two-digit level we would be able to provide the indicator for 155 countries and on the three-digit level we would be able to provide this indicator for 100 countries. So to summarize the idea here is really that well because the data is already available in the ILOs that an employment related ICT indicator could relatively be easy produced so it’s in a sense a low-hanging fruit here and a possibility is to use an indicator based on this more precise definition that would be in alignment to the boundaries of the ICT sector but then potentially complement this indicator with a slightly broader an indicator with based on a slightly broader definition in order to be able to increase the number of countries for which the data can be produced and these indicators well they would provide valuable insights in terms of the development and importance of the ICT sector from the perspective of employment so it could be contribute to the understanding of the role of the ICT sector within countries labor markets. So a next step for us would be in collaboration to further explore these two different indicators to see how they relate to each other how they correlate to each other as well as assess the possibilities for dissemination look at more closely what is actually feasible in order to still ensure that we are producing indicators with a robust estimation as well as working more on providing more detailed definitions about these indicators as well as its methodology. So I will stop there yeah but of course happy to discuss further later thanks.

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you thank you very much Michael and Ailo and Marco. from ECLEC. We’ll leave a good good luck with your regional commission, Sibel. Thank you again for your support of the partnership. So in the case of, I’m Scarlet Fonder by the way, I’m with the e-commerce and digital economy branch of the UN Conference on Trade and Development. Maybe can we put back the slide that Esperanza presented with the table that shows the mapping for the indicators, please? In the meantime, just to let you know, UNCTAD as well as DESA and ITU is part, has been a long-standing member of the steering committee of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. UNCTAD in particular focuses on the indicators on ICT used by enterprises. Until now, we’re still collecting or trying, attempting to collect the indicator unemployment in the ICT sector. We cover also value-added of the ICT sector and international trade in ICT goods, ICT services and digitally deliverable services. Now, in addition, UNCTAD is currently in the process of developing methodological guidelines on measuring e-commerce value, which we hope will lead to comparable statistics in this area in a few years. Despite limited availability of official statistics on use of digital technologies by businesses and enterprises, the core indicators under UNCTAD’s aegis are already due for a review that would reflect the evolution in the digital economy over the past decade. review is coming at the same time as was already evoked by some of our speakers as the convergence of both the WSIS plus 20 review and figuring out how the international community and countries will monitor GDC commitments. So UNCTAD is contributing to the partnerships mapping presented by Esperanza earlier that you can see here in the slide, but also we expect to use this mapping to inform the review of our own core indicators so that we are able to make some comeback with a new core indicators list that is useful for the future and forward looking. The review of the core indicators under our mandate will be done through a consultation with national statistical offices and other producers of official statistics because in the case of e-commerce and the digital economy, producers of official statistics may include also central banks, customs authorities, ministries of trade and technology. We will need to eliminate probably some core indicators that have become less important for digital policymaking. We might also relinquish indicators like we will probably do with the employment in the ICT sector to ILO. We will probably develop new ones like the e-commerce value indicators and maybe others that could be gathered through the review process that we will launch in the second half of this year. We hope to have a completed reviewed core indicators list by next year and at that time we also will need to both raise awareness and build capacity among producers of official statistics as widely as possible, but particularly in developing countries so that we can ensure the indicators will be produced and do not remain a theoretical exercise. So we hope that, I don’t know how many national statistical offices or producers of official statistics are sitting down here, but we hope to have your support in conducting this review and also in providing inputs to the mapping that we have here because we’re still at a very low level of official statistics in information society and digital economy for developing countries and this needs to be remedied in order to guide policy making that will help place the developing world in a better position. So I would like now to open the floor for questions and answers. And I would like to ask the remote moderator if there are any remote participant questions to please let us know. Thank you. I would like to give the floor to our old friend Alexander.

Alexandre Barbosa: Thank you Scarlett and good morning everyone. For us it’s a pleasure to be here in this session since Brazil is following the partnership since the very beginning, since its inception that it was in Brazil in 2004. I’m Alexandre Barbosa, head of CETIC, which is a research center linked to the Brazilian Networking Information Center, NIC.br and CGI.br. I guess that what we have seen in this presentation today was a summary of this very hard working being conducted by the partnership which are very strategic alliance that really is providing proper guidance to member states in the field of measurement and of course data collection in standard setting, data compilation and dissemination. But I think that despite the great effort we still have to face many challenges because countries are being pressured to have more and more data in a very different areas that it’s difficult to really keep up to date with the requirements of data for evidence policymaking and I think that the data gap that we still face in many regions like in my region Latin America we are advancing in data production in many countries. Brazil is a good example of that but we are still facing difficulties in funding surveys so National Statistical Office are not always able to fund national surveys and also in some countries we still have technical and skill capacity gap in terms of implementing the methodologies that are being set by those organizations. So I think that we need really to force a new institutional arrangement where NSOs can cooperate with other organizations and also of course as I guess it was a Marco Linas from Sepau has mentioned to use new alternative data sources. We have been making a great exercise in an effort in Brazil in adopting new data sources in using new technologies like machine learning and big data. to produce official statistics and I think that one good example that Brazil is giving is also providing training and capacity building programs not only for Brazil but also for the region. One of our partners is UNECLAC, CEPAL, we have been running for 12 years digital transformation school in which we invite not only national statistical office but policy makers and regulators to discuss this new data ecosystem and also the NIC.br annual workshop on survey methodologies that we have in this room many partners including UNCTAD, ITU, OSD, UNDESA that has been coming to Brazil to help improve the dialogue with these different stakeholders. But not to talk too much I would like just to make a reflection that the partnership has to look ahead and try to advance in developing new indicators. We have now new agendas like the global digital compact now with the WSIS plus 20 review and I think that we could prioritize topics that include like meaningful connectivity and ITU has already made a very important contribution in proposing a framework for measurement and Brazil was one of the first countries that adopted last year and during the G20 under the Brazilian presidency ITU was the knowledge partner of the Brazilian government and also CETIC was one of the organizations that helped ITU and the Brazilian government to set a toolkit a framework for the G20 member states and it was adopted. So, I think that we have to promote this framework to allow countries to really provide indicators on meaningful connectivity. Also artificial intelligence issues, ITU is now working on the household survey to include some indicators on the use of AI by individuals. In Brazil, we have already adopted the IRISTAT set of indicators that is already on the field right now being collected. We are going to provide very soon released data on the use of AI by individuals. Also information integrity is something that we have to think in the context of the mandate of the partnership, how to measure information integrity. And also other topics such as DPI and environmental sustainability in the digital age. So those are areas that we should move ahead because there is a real pressure to have indicators to design proper and effective policies in these new areas and we have to follow up these new data ecosystems, not only NSOs but also other organizations. They are very relevant, providing relevant data sources that we should take advantage of. Thank you very much.

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Aleksandar. We also have a question from Alison.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you. Like Aleksandar, I suppose it’s also some by way of comment, but hopefully there’s some feedback on it as well. I’m Alison Gilbert from Research ICT Africa. We have been conducting surveys, household, individual, and microenterprise informal sector surveys together alongside CETIQ for over 20 years. Unfortunately not adequately funded like CETIQ. far more irregularly. And perhaps just to make the point that in the heyday of these surveys, we were supported to be able to cover 20 African countries. Of course, we were looking at much smaller surveys, just looking at telecom and mobile and early internet penetration. Now, because it costs so much to go into the field, we pack in a survey that looks extensively at some of these usage issues that have been raised here as not covered in currently by the indicators, including digital inclusion, including platform work, some of the demand side data that’s obviously not available in the administrative data or in big data for that matter. But it’s absolutely critical to getting the disaggregated data that we need on the exact points of policy intervention. And even, you know, masked by some of the disaggregated high level statistics we have, for example, on gender, that is informing some of the discourse and some of the inappropriate responses to some of these intersectional inequalities. You know, these are really challenges around intersections around poverty and gender and multiple other things, geographic location, not women as a homogenous group that are, you know, inexplicably affected by this. So gender is just one of them. But I think the ability to model this data and really identify, you know, where the challenges are and where the barriers are, you know, it’s absolutely critical that we get funding for this. And just to make the point that together with ITU as knowledge partners of the G20 under South Africa’s presidency, one of the objectives, hopefully we’ll see this come through in final declarations, is the finding funding for the support of this. You know, it keeps coming up. It’s in the GDC. It’s been longstanding and, you know, underpinning of the WSIS process. But actually the sustainable funding for this is just not there. digital inequality, which we like to describe not just digital divide funding, has dried up. That funding’s all been diverted to data governance now, DPI, and artificial intelligence. And of course, unless we address these underpinning inequalities, you don’t get transformative DPI or equitable AI, all those sorts of things. So just to make an appeal, that while at the very high level, one might see enormous progress over the last 20 years, for the majority of Africans, for example, people are as inequitably excluded, the bulk of people. And if we apply those meaningful connectivity work done under the Brazilian G20 and the ITU, under the Brazilian G20, on a global level, as we’ve tried to do, and on a continental level for the work that we’re doing within the G20, then those figures of 2.6 billion are actually more like double that in terms of meaningful connectivity. And further to extend the scope of the meaningful connectivity to look at equitable digital inclusion, which would look at some of those things that are out of scope for the meaningful connectivity, but are absolutely critical to understanding why with 95, 99% coverage in many African countries, many of the least developed countries, they’ve got a signal, and yet we have less than 20%, less than critical mass. uptake of these services, and therefore we don’t see the correlations with GDP and growth and other developmental aspects of that. So just an appeal for us to absolutely extend those indicators to look at the usage factors, the cost of the device, of course, absolutely critical, but even where in our micro enterprise and our informal sector surveys, for example, done with the World Bank, even where people have access to a device, they are very often not using it for anything at all, but if anything at all for WhatsApp. And again, just to say again, the importance of getting this data at more than the just very high level that you either get from the labour survey or from the census or something like that. We see equity in many countries in the informal sector around very poor, but equity or parity, I should say, around internet access. But in fact, as soon as you unpack that a little bit between men and women, parity, as soon as you unpack that a bit, you see that women become unable to use it. They don’t have the education, the skills, the affordability to use these devices. So just a appeal that we continue.

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you, Alison. Sorry, it’s just we have just a few more minutes to go before we have to give up the room. We had one hand raised here and another one over there. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Participant: My name is Gembly Camacho. I’m the senior monitoring and evaluation specialist at APC. APC is an international civil society network. Yes, we are based in a membership of network all over the world, especially in the global south. But I have just a specific question. I really wanted to know how much the civil society is participating in the design of the indicators, in the design of the data collection processes, and how much the civil society organization is participating in the analysis of the data to analyze the results and how the indicators are behaving and how they are connected with the policymaking. Then I just wanted to know how much the civil society is participating and also how much importance do you think the civil society have in the participation of the civil society, how much importance you think it has, and I’m talking about that because of the right of the population to create the data they need to really reflect on their own realities. Then I wanted to know that part. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. We’ll answer that question, I think, at the end. Okay, thank you. My name is Titi Casa. I work for the AGI, the Agency for Digital Italy, for the Italian government. I am also AGF magma. So thank you so much for your great presentation. And as far as I understand, I mean, most of the measurements you are doing are related to the meaningful access. So I wonder if, in relation to the other 11 action lines, there are other kinds of measurements that you are doing, that you are collecting. And the second question is referring also to the source that you are using to collect this data. As, for instance, in Italy, are you using just the National Statistic Institute or are you using also other…

Scarlett Fondeur: Thank you very much and we had one question online which I’ll add to the list and then maybe we can attempt to respond within five minutes so that we can leave the room for the next session. We were asked online, the countries which are in most need are usually those where there is most difficulty in obtaining reliable data and what measures will be made to support them. So maybe I would like to just mention that the issue of funding for data collection that was raised by Alexander and by Alison is one that is definitely difficult but the interlocutors for the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development have to be producers of official statistics because one of the main objectives of the partnership is to make available and improve the availability of comparable, internationally comparable statistics and in order for them to be internationally comparable, official statisticians or producers of official statistics have to agree on what are the parameters of comparability. So there is scope at the national level to use other sources of data and I think that’s part of the work that Alexander pointed to of how can national statistical offices or other producers of official statistics can incorporate innovative sources of data but they have a critical role in giving a stamp of approval in so far as the methodologies are and how that data is used and disseminated. Maybe you would like to add something?

Esperanza Magpantay: Thank you so much for the question. So just to add to what Scarlett had mentioned. But that part of the work is still ongoing at the national level, but it will be indirectly sent to the national statistical offices so that international organizations such as ITU, for example, will be able to get them from the national statistics office. So the point of contact is really the national statistics office. In terms of the question from our colleague with regards to other data collections, so the core indicators are mainly selected indicators that pertain to specific areas. So from the ITU where I came from, there are probably not more than 30 indicators in the core list that’s coming from our big data collection. From the ITU, we have two big questionnaires that we send to national statistical offices and regulators and ministries, and it includes a number of indicators, more than 100 indicators that are available for data users to get more information on areas that are not necessarily covered by the core list. So the quick reply is yes, there’s a lot more data that are available and are collected directly from countries. On the online participants, I think the quick answer there is that, from the ITU, we have conducted a number of workshops and events that are related to indicators on meaningful Universal and Meaningful Connectivity, and particularly engaging all the stakeholders for countries that are coming and those that have challenges in producing the data to help them understand the methodologies that we have, that we use in our data collections, and also to improve national coordination in the country. We always believe that national coordination among the different stakeholders in the country is the most important starting point, like the case of Brazil. I think the other stakeholders in the country facilitated availability, high availability of the data, because funding was identified and there are other stakeholders helping the NSO or the agency collecting the data to produce those statistics. So those are not necessarily budgets that are coming from the national statistics regular operation, but resources that are coming either from the regulators or the ministries or, for the case of Brazil, the Internet Registry Agency that facilitates the collection and improving data availability. Over to you, Scarlet. Thank you, Espy. Just one more point. I think

Scarlett Fondeur: the question coming from Italy also asked about other action lines and how we might measure or whether there are indicators for that, and that is part of the mapping process that we presented now, because we do recognize that the partnership has limits. We have the international organizations in the partnership have a mandate, cover a specific area according to their mandate, and where there are gaps, this mapping exercise is an attempt to identify them and hopefully point out that maybe, I don’t know, in health there might be a gap in data and hopefully have new partners that will help us remedy that gap. Our colleague from DESA would like to add something.

Deniz Susar: Yeah, just something quick. For example, we have e-government indicators, which is in response to WSIS Action Line C7 e-government. But let’s just remember that these are proxy indicators because WSIS has GDC as principles, WSIS has targets. So these are proxy indicators. Within the e-government indicators, we have 200 sub-indicators. So maybe some of those could be proxy to certain WSIS or GDC indicators.

Scarlett Fondeur: And finally, just one more comment regarding the mapping. I think there is also scope. Once we have finished this exercise, we will try to convey what work might be done, what support might be needed to help fill in gaps in the mapping, but also to help national statistical offices and producers of official statistics produce that data in a sustainable manner. That is not something that can be put on a table. That is something that needs to be articulated as accompanying such a mapping. But Partnership has been able to provide its inputs throughout the past 20 years to high-level political processes in the UN and to the UN Statistical Commission. So we hope to convey all of these needs, including the things that have been raised in this session. Thank you very much. Any other questions? No, I think we’re out of time now. Yeah. Thank you so much for joining us, and we encourage you to take a look at the session outcome that should be made available tomorrow, hopefully, and continue giving us your feedback. Thank you. Thank you so much. Recording stopped.

Agreement points

Need for comprehensive data collection and measurement frameworks

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Michael Frosch
– Marco Llinas
– Scarlett Fondeur
– Ayman El Sherbiny
– Alexandre Barbosa
– Alison Gillwald

Arguments

Partnership initiated as direct response to WSIS call for ICT indicators with 14 member organizations coordinating measurement work

ILO recently joined partnership and collaboration is proving fruitful for all members

ECLAC operates Digital Development Observatory with 100+ indicators following partnership standards and Regional AI Index covering 19 countries

UNCTAD reviewing core indicators to align with WSIS plus 20 and GDC commitments while eliminating less important indicators

ESCWA has 85 indicators measuring digital development across 22 member states with primary data collection

Brazil adopting new technologies like machine learning and big data to produce official statistics

Research ICT Africa conducts household and enterprise surveys covering usage issues and digital inclusion barriers

Summary

All speakers agree on the fundamental importance of robust data collection and measurement frameworks for ICT development, with each organization contributing specialized indicators and methodologies to create comprehensive coverage

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Recognition of significant data gaps and measurement challenges

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Alexandre Barbosa
– Alison Gillwald
– Participant

Arguments

Current 50+ indicators insufficient for measuring all areas, particularly employment, health, security, and governance

Countries face funding difficulties for national surveys and technical capacity gaps in implementing methodologies

Despite 95-99% coverage in many African countries, less than 20% uptake due to usage barriers not captured in current indicators

Most needed countries are often those with greatest difficulty obtaining reliable data

Summary

Speakers acknowledge that despite extensive indicator frameworks, significant gaps remain in data coverage and collection capabilities, particularly in developing countries and for measuring actual usage versus access

Topics

Development | Digital access

Importance of funding and sustainable financing for data collection

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Alexandre Barbosa
– Alison Gillwald

Arguments

Compromiso de Sevilla explicitly mentions importance of financing data availability for policymaking

Countries face funding difficulties for national surveys and technical capacity gaps in implementing methodologies

Digital inequality funding has dried up and been diverted to data governance, DPI, and AI despite persistent inequalities

Summary

All speakers emphasize the critical need for adequate and sustainable funding mechanisms to support data collection efforts, noting that funding challenges are a major barrier to comprehensive measurement

Topics

Development | Economic

Need to incorporate innovative data sources and methodologies

Speakers

– Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava
– Alexandre Barbosa
– Esperanza Magpantay

Arguments

Need to explore alternative data sources like big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data to complement traditional sources

Brazil adopting new technologies like machine learning and big data to produce official statistics

Partnership committed to publishing available data and conducting quantitative risk assessments

Summary

Speakers agree on the necessity of complementing traditional data collection methods with innovative approaches including big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data to improve data quality and coverage

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Regional organizations are developing comprehensive measurement frameworks that complement global efforts while providing capacity building and training to support other countries in their regions

Speakers

– Marco Llinas
– Ayman El Sherbiny
– Alexandre Barbosa

Arguments

ECLAC operates Digital Development Observatory with 100+ indicators following partnership standards and Regional AI Index covering 19 countries

ESCWA has 85 indicators measuring digital development across 22 member states with primary data collection

Brazil provides training programs and capacity building for the region through digital transformation school and survey methodology workshops

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of aligning existing indicators with major international frameworks and conducting systematic reviews to ensure relevance and eliminate outdated measures

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Scarlett Fondeur

Arguments

Partnership conducting mapping of 50 indicators against WSIS action lines, GDC objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity

UNCTAD reviewing core indicators to align with WSIS plus 20 and GDC commitments while eliminating less important indicators

Topics

Development

Both speakers advocate for expanding measurement into emerging areas while emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder coordination and innovative funding approaches for sustainable data collection

Speakers

– Alexandre Barbosa
– Esperanza Magpantay

Arguments

Need for indicators on meaningful connectivity, artificial intelligence use, information integrity, and environmental sustainability

National coordination and multi-stakeholder funding models like Brazil’s approach are essential for sustainable data collection

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Civil society participation in data processes

Speakers

– Scarlett Fondeur
– Participant

Arguments

Partnership primarily works with national statistical offices as official data producers while recognizing need for broader stakeholder engagement

Question raised about civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes

Explanation

While a participant raised concerns about limited civil society participation, there was unexpected consensus that broader stakeholder engagement is important, even though the partnership must maintain focus on official statistics for comparability

Topics

Development | Human rights

Transfer of indicators between organizations

Speakers

– Scarlett Fondeur
– Michael Frosch

Arguments

UNCTAD reviewing core indicators to align with WSIS plus 20 and GDC commitments while eliminating less important indicators

ILO can create employment-related ICT indicators using existing microdata for 55-155 countries depending on precision level

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the practical approach of transferring responsibility for specific indicators (like employment in ICT sector) from UNCTAD to ILO based on organizational expertise and data availability

Topics

Economic | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus among speakers on the fundamental importance of comprehensive ICT measurement frameworks, the need for sustainable funding, recognition of significant data gaps, and the value of incorporating innovative data sources. Regional organizations demonstrated alignment in their approaches to capacity building and complementary measurement initiatives.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with collaborative spirit – speakers consistently built upon each other’s points rather than disagreeing, indicating a mature partnership with shared understanding of challenges and solutions. The implications are positive for continued cooperation and coordinated efforts to address measurement gaps in ICT development.

Different viewpoints

Role of civil society in data collection and indicator development

Speakers

– Participant
– Scarlett Fondeur
– Esperanza Magpantay

Arguments

Question raised about civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes

Partnership primarily works with national statistical offices as official data producers while recognizing need for broader stakeholder engagement

Summary

A participant questioned the extent of civil society involvement in all stages of indicator development, emphasizing populations’ right to create data reflecting their realities. Partnership representatives responded that they must work primarily through official statistical offices for international comparability, though they acknowledge broader stakeholder needs.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Funding priorities and resource allocation for data collection

Speakers

– Alison Gillwald
– Alexandre Barbosa

Arguments

Digital inequality funding has dried up and been diverted to data governance, DPI, and AI despite persistent inequalities

Countries face funding difficulties for national surveys and technical capacity gaps in implementing methodologies

Summary

Alison Gillwald argues that funding has been inappropriately diverted from addressing basic digital inequalities to newer areas like AI and data governance, while Alexandre Barbosa focuses on the general funding difficulties countries face for surveys and capacity building.

Topics

Development | Economic

Unexpected differences

Tension between standardization and local relevance in data collection

Speakers

– Participant
– Scarlett Fondeur

Arguments

Question raised about civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes

Partnership primarily works with national statistical offices as official data producers while recognizing need for broader stakeholder engagement

Explanation

Unexpected disagreement emerged about whether the partnership’s focus on official statistics and international comparability might exclude important local perspectives and civil society contributions. This tension between standardization needs and inclusive participation was not anticipated as a major discussion point.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed limited but significant disagreements around funding priorities, stakeholder inclusion, and measurement approaches. Most speakers agreed on fundamental needs but differed on implementation strategies and priorities.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely shared common goals of improving ICT measurement and data availability, but showed different perspectives on how to achieve these goals, particularly regarding civil society participation, funding allocation, and the balance between standardization and local needs. These disagreements reflect broader tensions in international development work between top-down standardization and bottom-up participation, but did not prevent collaborative progress on the partnership’s objectives.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Regional organizations are developing comprehensive measurement frameworks that complement global efforts while providing capacity building and training to support other countries in their regions

Speakers

– Marco Llinas
– Ayman El Sherbiny
– Alexandre Barbosa

Arguments

ECLAC operates Digital Development Observatory with 100+ indicators following partnership standards and Regional AI Index covering 19 countries

ESCWA has 85 indicators measuring digital development across 22 member states with primary data collection

Brazil provides training programs and capacity building for the region through digital transformation school and survey methodology workshops

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of aligning existing indicators with major international frameworks and conducting systematic reviews to ensure relevance and eliminate outdated measures

Speakers

– Esperanza Magpantay
– Scarlett Fondeur

Arguments

Partnership conducting mapping of 50 indicators against WSIS action lines, GDC objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity

UNCTAD reviewing core indicators to align with WSIS plus 20 and GDC commitments while eliminating less important indicators

Topics

Development

Both speakers advocate for expanding measurement into emerging areas while emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder coordination and innovative funding approaches for sustainable data collection

Speakers

– Alexandre Barbosa
– Esperanza Magpantay

Arguments

Need for indicators on meaningful connectivity, artificial intelligence use, information integrity, and environmental sustainability

National coordination and multi-stakeholder funding models like Brazil’s approach are essential for sustainable data collection

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development has grown to 14 member organizations with 50+ core indicators, but significant gaps remain in measuring employment, health, security, and governance aspects of digital development

A comprehensive mapping exercise is underway to align existing indicators with WSIS action lines, Global Digital Compact objectives, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity frameworks to identify measurement gaps

Funding constraints and technical capacity gaps are major barriers preventing countries, especially in the Global South, from conducting regular ICT surveys and producing comparable statistics

New data sources including big data, mobile phone data, and satellite imagery offer potential to complement traditional survey methods, with several countries like Brazil already implementing innovative approaches

Regional organizations are making significant contributions with ECLAC’s Digital Development Observatory, ESCWA’s 85-indicator framework, and various AI measurement initiatives across regions

The partnership is evolving to address emerging areas like artificial intelligence use, meaningful connectivity, information integrity, and environmental sustainability in the digital age

A centralized data hub hosted by ITU will launch in 2025-2026 to provide unified access to all partnership indicators with AI-powered tools for enhanced user interaction

Resolutions and action items

Finalize the mapping matrix of indicators against WSIS, GDC, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity frameworks to be published on the partnership website

Launch the ITU data hub with country dashboards in 2025 and upgrade in 2026, including an AI-powered chatbot for data interaction

ILO to further explore and develop employment-related ICT indicators using existing microdata, potentially covering 55-155 countries depending on precision level

UNCTAD to conduct a comprehensive review of core indicators through consultation with national statistical offices in the second half of the year

Partnership to propose indicator framework mandate to WSIS plus 20 review co-facilitators for inclusion in end-of-year resolution

Regional commissions (ECLAC, ESCWA) to continue contributing primary data and methodologies to complement national statistical office data

Conduct quantitative risk assessment of current indicator coverage and data availability gaps

Unresolved issues

Sustainable funding mechanisms for regular ICT surveys in developing countries remain unclear, with digital inequality funding being diverted to other priorities

The extent and methodology for incorporating civil society participation in indicator design, data collection, and analysis processes needs clarification

How to effectively measure meaningful connectivity beyond basic access, particularly addressing usage barriers that prevent transformative digital inclusion

Standardization challenges for new data sources like big data and mobile phone data to ensure international comparability while maintaining official statistics standards

Capacity building needs for national statistical offices to implement new methodologies and incorporate alternative data sources

Coordination mechanisms between national statistical offices and other data producers (regulators, ministries, private sector) for comprehensive data collection

Suggested compromises

ILO proposed using both 3-digit ISIC level indicators (more precise, fewer countries) and 2-digit ISIC level indicators (broader definition, more countries) to balance precision with coverage for employment indicators

Partnership to work with proxy indicators for complex areas like WSIS action lines and GDC objectives while acknowledging they may not capture all dimensions

UNCTAD suggested eliminating less important core indicators while developing new ones like e-commerce value indicators to keep the framework manageable and relevant

Use of multi-stakeholder funding models like Brazil’s approach where regulators, ministries, and internet registry agencies supplement national statistical office budgets

Regional organizations to provide complementary data collection through direct country engagement to fill gaps in official statistics while maintaining coordination with national statistical offices

Without data, we cannot identify where the digital divide exists, nor can we design evidence-based policies to close it. With it, we can have a positive and measurable impact on people’s lives… it is important for us to recognize that at the base or foundation of artificial intelligence is data. Without connecting everyone or certain regions or certain groups of countries, like least developed countries, landlocked developing states, and small island developing states, we are limited in terms of the availability of data.

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Reason

This comment is insightful because it establishes the fundamental connection between data availability and AI development, while highlighting how digital exclusion creates a vicious cycle that limits both connectivity and AI advancement for vulnerable populations. It reframes the discussion from technical measurement to equity and inclusion.

Impact

This opening comment set the tone for the entire session by establishing data as foundational to both policy-making and emerging technologies like AI. It influenced subsequent speakers to address gaps and inequalities in their presentations, and established the urgency of the measurement work being discussed.

So far, what we found out is that although we have more than 50 indicators, there are still a number of areas that need indicators or measurement, particularly on employment, on health, on security, on governance, for example.

Speaker

Esperanza Magpantay

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it reveals a critical gap between the perceived comprehensiveness of existing measurement frameworks and the actual coverage needed for holistic digital development assessment. It challenges the assumption that 50+ indicators are sufficient.

Impact

This observation directly led to concrete responses from other organizations. Michael Frosch from ILO immediately addressed the employment gap by proposing specific ICT employment indicators, and other speakers began identifying how their organizations could fill identified gaps.

But I think the ILO stat also includes the possibility due to that we have all this underlying data to create new indicators as well and this would also include the possibility to create employment related ICT indicators and by that maybe fill some of the gaps in the core list of the ICT indicators… So in other words based on the available data in the ILO stat it would be a possibility to create employment related ICT indicators

Speaker

Michael Frosch

Reason

This comment is insightful because it demonstrates how existing data infrastructure can be leveraged to address identified gaps without requiring entirely new data collection mechanisms. It shows practical problem-solving and resource optimization.

Impact

This response directly addressed the employment gap identified by Esperanza and provided a concrete solution with specific country coverage numbers. It shifted the discussion from identifying problems to proposing actionable solutions and demonstrated how partnership collaboration can work effectively.

But I think that despite the great effort we still have to face many challenges because countries are being pressured to have more and more data in a very different areas that it’s difficult to really keep up to date with the requirements of data for evidence policymaking… we still have technical and skill capacity gap in terms of implementing the methodologies that are being set by those organizations.

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it introduces the critical tension between the growing demand for data and the practical limitations countries face in producing it. It challenges the assumption that more indicators automatically lead to better outcomes.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from technical measurement issues to practical implementation challenges. It prompted subsequent speakers like Alison Gillwald to elaborate on funding challenges and led to discussions about alternative data sources and capacity building needs.

And just to make the point that in the heyday of these surveys, we were supported to be able to cover 20 African countries… Now, because it costs so much to go into the field, we pack in a survey that looks extensively at some of these usage issues… But it’s absolutely critical to getting the disaggregated data that we need on the exact points of policy intervention… digital inequality funding has dried up. That funding’s all been diverted to data governance now, DPI, and artificial intelligence.

Speaker

Alison Gillwald

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it exposes a fundamental contradiction in development priorities: while there’s increased focus on advanced digital technologies, funding for basic measurement of digital inequalities has decreased. It reveals how funding trends may be undermining the foundational work needed for equitable digital development.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical reality check about resource allocation and sustainability. It connected the technical discussion to broader development funding patterns and highlighted how policy attention to emerging technologies might be inadvertently undermining basic measurement infrastructure needed for inclusive development.

I really wanted to know how much the civil society is participating in the design of the indicators, in the design of the data collection processes, and how much the civil society organization is participating in the analysis of the data… I’m talking about that because of the right of the population to create the data they need to really reflect on their own realities.

Speaker

Gembly Camacho

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it challenges the top-down approach to indicator development and raises fundamental questions about data sovereignty and participatory measurement. It introduces the concept of communities’ rights to shape how they are measured and represented in data.

Impact

This question introduced a new dimension to the discussion about governance and participation in measurement frameworks. While it came near the end and wasn’t fully addressed due to time constraints, it highlighted a significant gap in the partnership’s approach and raised questions about legitimacy and representation in international measurement efforts.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond technical measurement issues to address systemic challenges in digital development measurement. The conversation evolved from a presentation of existing frameworks to a critical examination of gaps, resource constraints, and governance issues. Zavazava’s opening established the stakes and urgency, Magpantay’s gap analysis prompted concrete responses from partners, and the later interventions by Barbosa, Gillwald, and Camacho introduced increasingly complex challenges around implementation, funding, and participation. The discussion demonstrated both the collaborative potential of the partnership (as seen in ILO’s immediate response to identified gaps) and the deeper structural challenges that technical solutions alone cannot address. The flow moved from optimistic collaboration to sobering realism about resource constraints and power dynamics in global measurement frameworks.

How can we strengthen national statistical offices and international coordination so we improve the frequency, quality, and granularity of ICT data?

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Explanation

This is a fundamental question about improving the institutional capacity and coordination mechanisms needed to enhance ICT data collection and quality globally.

What role can alternatives like big data, satellite imagery, and mobile phone data play in complementing traditional data sources?

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Explanation

This addresses the need to explore innovative data sources to fill gaps in traditional statistical collection methods, particularly important for developing countries with limited statistical capacity.

How can we better map core ICT indicators against international development frameworks, including the WSIS Action Lines, the Global Digital Compact, and Universal Meaningful Connectivity?

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that measurement efforts align with and support monitoring of key international digital development commitments and frameworks.

How do we translate the data into action, ensuring it directly informs national digital strategies and embeds accountability and inclusivity in digital transformation?

Speaker

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap between data collection and policy implementation, ensuring that statistics lead to meaningful policy changes.

Whether these 50 indicators are enough to measure different goals and targets and global monitoring with regards to universal and meaningful connectivity, the WSIS action lines, as well as the global digital compact

Speaker

Esperanza Magpantay

Explanation

This is a fundamental assessment question about the adequacy of current measurement frameworks for monitoring key digital development objectives.

How much the civil society is participating in the design of the indicators, in the design of the data collection processes, and how much the civil society organization is participating in the analysis of the data

Speaker

Gembly Camacho (APC)

Explanation

This addresses the important question of stakeholder participation and the right of populations to participate in creating data that reflects their realities.

In relation to the other 11 action lines, are there other kinds of measurements that you are doing beyond meaningful access?

Speaker

Titi Casa (Agency for Digital Italy)

Explanation

This seeks to understand the scope of measurement beyond connectivity and access indicators to cover other aspects of digital development.

What measures will be made to support countries which are in most need but where there is most difficulty in obtaining reliable data?

Speaker

Online participant

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of data collection in the most vulnerable countries that often have the greatest need for support but face the most barriers to data collection.

How to measure information integrity in the context of the mandate of the partnership

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

Explanation

This identifies a new area requiring measurement frameworks as information integrity becomes increasingly important in the digital age.

How to develop indicators for artificial intelligence usage by individuals and enterprises

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

Explanation

This addresses the need for new measurement frameworks to capture the adoption and impact of AI technologies across different sectors.

How to measure environmental sustainability in the digital age

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

Explanation

This identifies the need for indicators that capture the environmental impact and sustainability aspects of digital transformation.

How to measure e-commerce value and develop comparable statistics in this area

Speaker

Scarlett Fondeur (UNCTAD)

Explanation

This addresses a significant gap in measuring the economic value and impact of digital commerce activities.

How to measure employment by digital platforms and platform work

Speaker

Michael Frosch (ILO)

Explanation

This addresses the need to capture new forms of employment and work arrangements enabled by digital platforms.

How to extend meaningful connectivity indicators to look at equitable digital inclusion, including usage factors and barriers

Speaker

Alison Gillwald

Explanation

This seeks to develop more comprehensive measures that go beyond basic connectivity to understand actual usage patterns and barriers to digital inclusion.

How to secure sustainable funding for regular data collection, particularly in developing countries

Speaker

Alexandre Barbosa and Alison Gillwald

Explanation

This addresses a critical operational challenge where funding constraints limit the ability to collect regular, comprehensive data needed for policy making.

Summary

This roundtable discussion, organized by the European Commission and African Union, focused on the importance of human rights due diligence in technology development and implementation, particularly in the context of the WSIS Plus 20 review process. The panel brought together representatives from the European Commission, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the African Union, civil society, and the private sector to examine how human rights frameworks can guide technological innovation.

The discussion emphasized that human rights should serve as a “compass” for innovation rather than an obstacle, helping to surface hidden harms and ensure technology benefits all people. Panelists highlighted that human rights due diligence is essential for building trust in the digital economy, as consumers are more likely to share data with companies that respect their rights. From a business perspective, Nokia’s representative explained that human rights due diligence must be integrated throughout the technology lifecycle, from research and development to sales processes, requiring strong management support and continuous training.

The conversation addressed the balance between voluntary and mandatory measures, with participants noting that while some companies proactively implement human rights safeguards, regulatory frameworks like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive help create level playing fields. Special attention was given to protecting vulnerable populations, particularly children, given Africa’s young demographic. The African Union representative emphasized the need for algorithmic transparency and digital dignity indices to assess the net effects of technological deployment.

The WSIS Plus 20 co-facilitators concluded by reaffirming their commitment to embedding human rights principles throughout the review process, while acknowledging that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected twenty years after the original WSIS vision of a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) as a Framework for Technology**: The discussion emphasized HRDD as a systematic approach to identify, prevent, and mitigate human rights risks in technology development and deployment, with speakers describing it as a “compass” rather than an obstacle to innovation.

– **Business Case for Human Rights in Technology**: Panelists argued that respecting human rights is not only ethically correct but also economically beneficial, with trust being fundamental to the data economy – companies that respect user rights build greater trust and achieve more sustainable business models.

– **Implementation Strategies and Best Practices**: The conversation covered practical approaches including embedding human rights considerations early in product development, requiring management support for human rights policies, conducting continuous training, and using external audits through multi-stakeholder initiatives.

– **Integration of Human Rights into WSIS Plus 20 Review**: Participants discussed how to strengthen human rights language in the World Summit on the Information Society review process, emphasizing that human rights should be “by default” rather than an add-on, and calling for explicit inclusion of UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

– **Addressing Digital Divides and Vulnerable Populations**: The discussion highlighted the need to focus on those left behind, particularly the 2.6 billion people still unconnected globally, with special attention to children, women, and other vulnerable groups in the context of AI and emerging technologies.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how human rights due diligence can be integrated into technology development and digital governance frameworks, specifically within the context of the WSIS Plus 20 review process. The goal was to demonstrate that human rights considerations enhance rather than hinder technological innovation and business success, while providing practical guidance for implementation.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently collaborative, constructive, and optimistic throughout the conversation. Speakers demonstrated strong alignment on core principles, with the discussion maintaining a professional yet passionate advocacy for human rights integration. The tone remained solution-oriented rather than confrontational, with panelists building on each other’s points and the co-facilitators expressing genuine openness to incorporating human rights perspectives into the WSIS review process. There was a sense of urgency balanced with pragmatic realism about implementation challenges.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Thibaut Kleiner** – European Commission representative, moderator/organizer of the roundtable discussion

– **Anna Oosterlinck** – Article 19 representative

– **Suela Janina** – Co-facilitator of WSIS Plus 20 review process

– **Gbenga Sesan** – Executive Director of Paradigm Initiative, IGF Leadership Panel member

– **Ekitela Lokaale** – Co-facilitator of WSIS Plus 20 review process, diplomat and human rights lawyer

– **Fiona Cura-Pietre** – Head of Human Rights at Nokia

– **Peggy Hicks** – Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) representative, panel moderator

– **Lavina Ramkissoon** – Ambassador from the African Union (Her Excellency)

– **Participant** – Josiane with Child Rights and Business in UNICEF

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond those in the provided speakers names list.

# Human Rights Due Diligence in Technology Development – WSIS Plus 20 Roundtable Discussion

## Executive Summary

This roundtable discussion, jointly organised by the European Commission and African Union, examined the role of human rights due diligence (HRDD) in technology development within the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process. The discussion brought together representatives from government, UN agencies, civil society, private sector, and international organisations to explore how human rights frameworks can guide technological innovation while addressing the reality that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected twenty years after the original WSIS vision.

## Key Participants

**Thibaut Kleiner** from the European Commission opened the discussion, framing it within current global challenges including surveillance, misinformation, and digital exclusion. **Peggy Hicks** from the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) served as moderator, emphasising how human rights can serve as a tool to deliver benefits from digital technology while avoiding risks.

**Suela Janina** and **Ekitela Lokaale** served as co-facilitators of the WSIS Plus 20 review process. Lokaale emphasised the need to ask “who is left behind and why?” when considering the 2.6 billion people still unconnected globally, while both demonstrated openness to incorporating human rights perspectives into the review process.

**Anna Oosterlinck** from Article 19 advocated for strengthening human rights language in the WSIS framework. **Gbenga Sesan** from Paradigm Initiative provided insights on the business case for human rights, while **Fiona Cura-Pietre**, Head of Human Rights at Nokia, offered practical implementation perspectives. **Ambassador Lavina Ramkissoon** from the African Union emphasised algorithmic transparency and child rights protection. A participant from UNICEF raised questions about balancing mandatory and voluntary measures.

## Human Rights as a Framework for Innovation

Ambassador Ramkissoon referenced former UN High Commissioner Navi Pillay’s observation that “human rights is not an obstacle to innovation, but it is a compass,” explaining how this framework determines “the sort of digital divide that we end up with or not.” This reframing positioned human rights as guidance for sustainable development rather than a constraint on technological progress.

Peggy Hicks reinforced this perspective, describing human rights as “a tool to deliver benefits from digital technology and AI while avoiding risks.” The framework’s value lies in its ability to surface hidden harms and make invisible impacts visible, providing a structured methodology for thinking through technology impacts on people in advance.

Suela Janina highlighted technology’s dual nature, noting that it “can both enable human rights through access to information and infringe rights without proper safeguards,” underscoring the need for human rights protection throughout the entire technology lifecycle.

## The Business Case for Human Rights

Gbenga Sesan provided compelling analysis of why human rights protection makes business sense: “the new economy, the data economy, the gig economy, is built on the concept of trust. If I don’t trust you, I won’t give you my data. If I don’t give you my data, you can’t process it.” He emphasised that “human dignity is a core need. Everyone wants to be respected.”

This insight links human rights directly to the core asset of digital businesses – user data and trust. Sesan noted the need to find “that bite point, that balance between people and profits,” while identifying “a huge gap between doing just enough to meet legal requirements and doing enough to respect rights.”

Fiona Cura-Pietre reinforced this from a corporate perspective, explaining that “it’s more profitable to implement HRDD than deal with reputational damage from violations.” She noted that Nokia, being “active in over 120 countries,” wants to “deliver connectivity in a responsible way.”

## Practical Implementation Strategies

Cura-Pietre shared Nokia’s approach: “we do [human rights due diligence] as part of our sales approval process… before the sale is done, because that’s where our leverage is. It allows us to walk away and say, no, we don’t want to do this.”

Key implementation elements include:

– **Management Support**: CEO-approved policies are essential for making human rights-based decisions

– **Continuous Training**: Awareness building across all business units

– **Lifecycle Integration**: Building HRDD into R&D processes for both near-term and future technology development

– **External Assessment**: Multi-stakeholder engagement provides valuable external input and accountability

Sesan added that “documented processes enable strategic litigation and provide proof when rights violations occur,” emphasising the importance of clear audit trails.

## Integration into WSIS Plus 20 Review

Anna Oosterlinck observed that “human rights language in current WSIS framework is fairly light and needs strengthening with explicit reference to UN Guiding Principles.” Sesan emphasised that “human rights must be embedded by default, not as a tokenistic add-on to the WSIS process.”

The co-facilitators demonstrated commitment to incorporating these perspectives. Lokaale explained their “open, multi-stakeholder approach to the WSIS Plus 20 consultation process” and committed to strengthening human rights language in the zero draft. She emphasised that a “human rights-based approach should guide both process and outcomes with accountability and non-discrimination.”

Janina noted that “the Global Digital Compact provided positive language developments and compromise formulations” that could inform the WSIS review. Both co-facilitators extended deadlines for written inputs to enable broader participation.

The original WSIS vision of a “people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented information society” inherently embodies human rights principles, providing a foundation for strengthening the framework.

## Addressing Digital Divides and Vulnerable Populations

The discussion repeatedly addressed the challenge that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected. Vulnerable groups requiring special attention include:

– **Children and Young People**: Ramkissoon highlighted that “child rights protection is crucial given Africa’s young population”

– **Women**: Janina specifically mentioned women among vulnerable categories needing special focus

– **Persons with Disabilities**: Recognised as facing particular barriers in digital access

The conversation emphasised ensuring that human rights safeguards enhance rather than hinder digital inclusion for marginalised populations.

## Balancing Mandatory and Voluntary Measures

Participants expressed different perspectives on regulatory approaches. Cura-Pietre advocated that “companies should implement HRDD regardless of legal requirements because it’s the right approach,” while acknowledging moves toward mandatory requirements through legislation like the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.

The UNICEF participant raised concerns about finding the right balance between mandatory and voluntary measures, particularly considering impacts on startups and small tech companies. The discussion suggested that complementary mandatory and voluntary measures may be most effective.

## Future Challenges and Considerations

Ramkissoon raised forward-looking questions about “how to navigate human-AI coexistence and prepare for a society with multiple humanoids functioning alongside humans,” advocating for “algorithmic transparency and checkpoints” and proposing “digital dignity indices” to assess technological impacts.

Current challenges include surveillance, misinformation, and deprivation of choice and voice, demonstrating that human rights concerns require immediate attention alongside preparation for future technologies.

Ramkissoon identified cultural change as particularly challenging, noting that “cultural mindset shifts are needed, which may be the hardest problem to solve in today’s age.” She emphasised that “human rights requires storytelling, open dialogue, and community engagement as fundamental building blocks.”

## Conclusions

The discussion demonstrated broad agreement among stakeholders on the importance of human rights due diligence in technology development. The business case for human rights protection emerged as particularly compelling, with speakers showing that trust built through rights protection is both morally correct and economically advantageous.

The commitment of WSIS Plus 20 co-facilitators to strengthening human rights language, combined with practical insights from business and civil society representatives, indicates momentum for advancing human rights integration in digital governance frameworks.

Key challenges remain in connecting 2.6 billion unconnected people while ensuring human rights safeguards enhance rather than hinder digital inclusion. The ongoing work requires balancing various stakeholder concerns while maintaining focus on the original WSIS vision of people-centred digital development.

Thibaut Kleiner: Mr. Thibaut Kleiner, Ms. Lavina Ramkissoon Mr. Thibaut Kleiner, Ms. Lavina Ramkissoon Mr. Thibaut Kleiner, Ms. Lavina Ramkissoon Mr. Thibaut Kleiner, Ms. Lavina Ramkissoon Okay, good afternoon. So I’m Thibaut Kleiner from the European Commission, and I’m happy to welcome you today to this discussion, this roundtable. I think that we have really esteemed participants today, so I think excellencies are very happy to be able to also engage with this discussion overall. I think that human rights sometimes seems to be taken for granted in some of the conversations, but I think we have the opportunity today to reaffirm the importance of human rights for our work. And I wanted to start by, in fact, congratulating really the co-facilitators of the YSYS plus 20, because I think that the way you have approached the process, being very open to suggestions, also organizing now a consultation that will be very much based on multi-stakeholder principles, is something that I think has to be underlined, and I think that it is very promising for the following steps. I think we are all looking forward to sharing with you some initial reactions to the first elements, but also towards the zero draft, because we have little time left, actually, until December and the conclusion of these processes. But what is important is indeed that we also benefit from the very important discussions that took place already in the past two years around the Global Digital Compact. I think that there was a lot of positive development, and by and large I think that the language that was found in terms of compromise formulations were very helpful in bridging also various positions. And I think it was very nice to see also last September how countries from the Global South, if I may say, were also actually raising the issue that human rights are not to be compromised with, and I think this was really something that was very much noticed. and I think that it’s also something that from the side of the European Union we really want to again underline that it’s not something that is an issue that is just coming from one part of the spectrum, it’s an issue that we all share and it’s an issue also that we need to repeat because what is clear when you look around even in the whole talking about AI for instance is that the technology is extremely promising in terms of benefits but also that the risks and the opportunities to misuse technology have just increased. I think where we are today is a world where surveillance is a reality, where we are today is a world where you can be deprived from your choice, from your voice and where you can be subject to a lot of misinformation and disinformation. So I think that we cannot basically overlook these issues and these risks and that’s why it’s very important when we contemplate the future of the internet, the YSYS, we also remember its very origin and the formulations we had 20 years ago where again I think that human-centric, human rights-based approach were really cornerstone. So I don’t want to say much more but to basically open the floor I think that we are fortunate to have with us also Peggy Higgs from the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights who doesn’t need any introduction because I think that you’ve been also very influential in these debates including on AI precisely and I would like also to commend the participation of precisely the co-facilitators today. Great, thank you so much.

Peggy Hicks: It’s such a pleasure to be with you, to be working with the EU and the AU in partnership on co-organizing this event and to start off from that standpoint of really recognizing as you have the important role that with us. co-facilitators are having in the process. We’re grateful to have you with us, Ambassadors, and we hope it’ll be a fruitful discussion for you as well, especially, of course, as we’ve discussed, emphasizing the multi-stakeholder nature of the process and the inclusive approach that you’ve been taking. And this is an example of that, I think, being part of a conversation like this. As Thibaut has said, we all know that human rights has been brought into the WSIS process and that we’re looking to see how we can continue that engagement and strengthening in the WSIS Plus 20 review. But also, of course, we were quite pleased with the outcome of the Global Digital Compact that really sees human rights as a cross-cutting thread in each of the chapters and has really actionable steps that can be taken in this regard. But I think the most important point I wanted to say in introduction is the way we frame this conversation is important. We really want to start off by talking about how human rights can help, how it can be a tool that allows us to be able to deliver on the benefits that we see from digital technology and AI, and allow them to achieve their greatest purpose for people on the ground in all localities. And through that, of course, do it in a way that avoids the risks and makes it more certain that we’re able to achieve the benefits that are potentially there but sometimes might get lost. If we don’t, in advance, think through how will these technologies relate with real people and how will they be able to deliver the results we seek. And that’s what human rights due diligence is all about. It’s sort of a long phrase which we even, in that horrible UN way, tend to use an acronym of HRDD. But really, it’s just about thinking through what will the impacts of this technology be on people and how can we make sure that it achieves for people what we want it to and avoids or mitigates as many of the risks as we can at the same time. OHCHR, of course, is itself very engaged in this process and, as I said, really looking forward to being able to support the process as it moves forward in terms of how we can bring these issues both into WSIS the WSIS Review, but into the work of UNGIS and through the GDC as well. So with us today in spirit, if not in physical reality, we have a very esteemed panel that I’m happy to now introduce. Unfortunately, some things have interfered and are not actually with us, but I’m assured by our technical colleagues that we will have access to all of them. I would like to introduce them now, and then I’ll go to a question right away. So the three people that will be with us online are Her Excellency Lavina Ramkissoon, who is Ambassador from the African Union, and my good friend Gbenga Sison, who is the Executive Director of the Paradigm Initiative and on the IGF Leadership Panel. It’s good to have you with us, Gbenga. And then also Fiona Kira-Pietre, the Head of Human Rights at Nokia, and it’s very great to have that perspective, the business perspective brought into the conversation as well. So I’m going to tee it up for them in a fairly easy way with just a general question about why do you think human rights due diligence is useful for technology? What’s motivated you in this space and what positive impacts have you seen? And I think, are we still having some problems with getting the Ambassador online? We don’t have her yet? No, we do. Okay, perfect. Then I’d like to turn the floor to Ambassador Ramkissoon to answer that first question.

Lavina Ramkissoon: Thank you so very much, Madam Moderator and the audience, definitely in spirit, and apologies ahead of time. So this is, the question of human rights and due diligence is really sort of the center focus when we have to talk about the sort of African continent. When we really start thinking and unpacking a little bit about HRDD, it really then starts to what we believe is lend and give us a framework, a framework in terms of surfacing a lot of the hidden sort of harms that may or may not be there. And You know, as such, I think it is allowing us to see a lot of the invisibility of what actually is the net effect of what is actually happening alongside us. To quote one of the previous UN higher commissioners, I think it was Navi Pillay who really said that human rights is not an obstacle to innovation, but it is a compass. And I think this becomes even more true as we sort of engage into the sort of digital realm of things. You know, how we embed it and how that becomes so ingrained and part and parcel of how we function really determines the sort of digital divide that we end up with or not. So let me stop there and pass over to the other colleagues.

Peggy Hicks: Great. Thank you. A wonderful start. I really like that compass imagery from High Commissioner Pillay and allowing us to look more visibly at the impacts that are surfaced through this type of analysis. I’m going to turn next to Benga Sassan. Benga, are you with us?

Gbenga Sesan: 100 percent, though virtual. Hello. Yes, thank you so much, Peggy. It’s great to be able to join, although virtually, and this is a topic that I’m very excited about. We were just having conversations about this last week, so I’m glad that we’re also continuing with this important conversation. I think that centrally human rights or whatever name we call it, and I want to maybe, you know, talk about dignity of the human person right now is a core need. Everyone wants to be respected. Just try to remember the first time you met the person sitting beside you earlier today. If they were kind to you, you are definitely going to listen more when they speak. If someone walks past you and sort of even disrespects you, when they speak there’s almost an automatic response that you’re giving, you know, even in your body language, you’re like not listening to them because everyone wants to be respected. We remember, like they say, how people treat us even before we remember the things they’re saying. So human dignity is a core need. We all want to be respected. We want our rights to be respected. Now where there is a challenge is that business models don’t always respect rights. And that is a problem, you know, that we need to admit. There are many times when businesses say, oh, you know, we’re going to do good. We’re going to make sure nothing goes wrong. But more often than not, some businesses have to choose certain things that don’t exactly respect rights. I mean, I don’t need to talk about the extractives industry. I don’t need to talk about even the data economy that we’re in many times. This is the one reason why we need to talk about human rights due diligence, where we need to bring business models back to the table, break it down, analyze it, and ensure that there is a balance between people and profits. There are times when the focus is on profits and people get forgotten. There are times when arguments are made that, well, if you focus on people alone, there’ll be no profit and no company will exist. So we need to find that bite point, that balance between people and profits, making sure that, yes, you can make profits, but you don’t make profits at the expense of people. Of course, it then brings, you know, the central question that I always love to ask, is human rights good for business or do businesses suffer when they try to respect rights? My answer to that is yes, and I’m going to use my sector, the digital sector, as a very good example. Right now, the new economy, the data economy, the gig economy, is built on the concept of trust. If I don’t trust you, I won’t give you my data. If I don’t give you my data, you can’t process it. If you don’t process it, you can’t make money from that particular process. And guess what? What makes me trust you is when you respect my rights. So if you respect my rights, I trust you, and you can use my data, and we can both win. You make money, I’m respected. And this is the major reason why I believe that human rights due diligence is important, because many times businesses forget that rights and trust are at the center of the sustainability of their whole system. So when they need reminders, human rights due diligence does that job for them.

Peggy Hicks: Thank you. Thank you so much, Benga. And I love the way that you brought in the dignity of the person, because we do as a lot of lawyers in the room, probably some technologists, we sometimes forget what the conversation can be about. And that linking of the people to the business models and the approaches is crucial. And it’s actually a very good bridge to turn the floor to Fiona Chiaropetri, who’s head of human rights at Nokia, who obviously has tons of experience in this. So it’s a leading company that’s obviously facing these issues on a day-to-day basis. Over to you,

Fiona Cura-Pietre: Fiona. Thank you very much. It’s an honor to be speaking here, even if it’s just virtually. So thank you very much for the invite. So why is human rights due diligence important? Well, for Nokia, I mean, it’s obviously the right thing to do. I mean, we’re active in over 120 countries, and we want to deliver connectivity in a responsible way. And in order to do that, we must have a way to look at what our biggest risks are and mitigate those risks. And that’s where our human rights due diligence process comes in. You know, responsible business is a key part of our sustainability strategy, and we take pride in having strong ethical practices. It’s not just that. I mean, our stakeholders demand it as well. It’s not just the right thing to do. It’s demanded from us, from regulators, including export regulators, investors, structured financers, customers, and much, much more. It’s just the right way to do things. And I would say I would even go as far as to say it’s more profitable to do it this way than end up with something going wrong, and then you have reputational hits, and then you have all sorts of other different troubles. So it’s just the right way to do things. And it’s the best way to do things, in our opinion.

Peggy Hicks: That’s really wonderful to hear that you’re so positively answering the question that Benga asked as well about, you know, is human rights good for business? And the case that it’s actually the best way to do business in that you avoid those risks. And that’s what’s proven by the approach that Nokia is taking with regards to human rights due diligence. I’m going to turn to the online panelists again for one more question, and then we will, if we have time, try to open it up to the room as well for a couple of questions. But going back to Ambassador, your perspective from the AU, could you give us a sense of how you think we could build awareness of and support for human rights due diligence? Fiona mentioned that part of what drives companies to do this is also that stakeholders are demanding it. And sometimes we wonder, you know, whether consumers are really at the table and engaged in the conversation, certainly investors, as she mentioned as well. But how do we make sure that we have the awareness and support for human rights due diligence that we need, Ambassador?

Lavina Ramkissoon: Yeah, thanks so much for that. I think, you know, to continue on what Fiona sort of mentioned, I think around community being a fundamental block, you know, as part of that solution is definitely one area to look at. You know, generally speaking, I think human rights has really been about storytelling, you know, to a large degree, opening this up further to ensuring, you know, open halls and town halls, or even finding, you know, other areas of awareness and, you know, buy-in that is required is fundamental. Culture is something that is, again, you know, the cornerstone of all of that. And it becomes, you know, one where it’s a mind shift, mindset shift that’s required. So some say this is probably the hardest problem for us to solve in today’s day and age is, you know, changing the human mindset. But, you know, I think that definitely then lends itself into, you know, having sustainable models around human rights, especially given in the age of AI. where I think things like child rights and that awareness needs to become quite larger and louder. In addition to that, I think Gbenga Sison mentioned digital dignity and us putting together something like a digital dignity index or having an impact audit or assessment that is there to understand what is the actual net effect again that is being interpreted or being absorbed by everyone. At the end of the day, awareness is one thing, buy-in is another but sustainability is probably where we’re really after when it comes to ensuring that this digital universe that we have is not just bending towards justice but it is something that we are consciously contributing to all the time. Great, thank you so much Ambassador.

Peggy Hicks: That awareness, buy-in and leading to sustainability I think is just a wonderful framework for how we think about this and you gave us some good tips on how we might be able to get there. Fiona, I’m going to turn to you next and obviously coming from your perspective in the private sector, could you give us a little bit more detail about how you’re building human rights due diligence into your work and what tangible results you’ve seen on your side?

Fiona Cura-Pietre: Sure, so first of all the cornerstone of how we look at human rights is based on the UNGPs, so that’s how we look at it and the salient risk for Nokia, maybe if I back up a second, so we sell communications networks, we sell fixed networks, IP networks, mobile networks, data center technology, that’s what we sell and we sell to operators, service providers, enterprises and governments. So the salient risk for Nokia is the potential misuse of our technology by those customer groups to infringe on freedom of expression or right to privacy. So, to mitigate this, we have a human rights due diligence process, and we do that as part of our sales approval process. So, it has to be preempted. It has to be before the sale is done, because that’s where our leverage is. It allows us to walk away and say, no, we don’t want to do this. Once the sale is done, basically, the deeds and the goods are gone, and we have no specific access to the technology. So, we do it before, and it’s institutionalized in our sales approval process. It’s a mandatory step. All sales need to go through this. It’s in our tools. It’s in our sales approval tool. But it’s not just that you need management support. Our human rights policy documents are approved by our CEO and our senior leaders. You need to have the management backing to be able to make decisions based purely on human rights, and that requires management backing to say, we’re not going to go after this deal, because we can’t mitigate the human rights concerns that we see. So, that’s absolutely critical when you’re doing this. And then, of course, you need to build awareness within the company, and it’s continuous training, continuous, continuous training, different kinds of training, but it’s never just a one-and-done. You need to make sure you’re reaching all those groups, all that person when he’s making that initial sales contact. It’s in his head. What are the things I should be thinking about should I be going after this deal? So, that’s very high-level how we implement it.

Peggy Hicks: I think it’s high-level, but very clear, I think, in terms of those three sort of key ingredients that you talked about. When it’s done in the process, and you do it before you’ve lost your leverage by already having committed to a deal to sell. The second piece of it all needs management support, and the human rights policy has to be real. You have to be able and willing to take the decisions that the process leads to. And then, the third piece is, as you said, sort of the continual awareness and training that needs to be part of it. Benka, I’d like to turn to you, finally, and ask you… You’ve obviously engaging quite a bit with protection of human rights and the people involved in it and innovation. And if you can tell us how human rights due diligence really helps to enable protection of human rights and helps us to make innovation more effective, that would be great. Thanks.

Gbenga Sesan: Thank you so much, Peggy. One is the fact that whatever we don’t document, we can’t change, right? And one of the advantages of the human rights due diligence process is it allows us to go through a series of documented and proven processes. We definitely need the opportunity to look at case studies. We can talk about the fact that human rights is good for business, but we need more case studies of how respectful rights, and like I said earlier, one of the things that we’ve seen is the role that trust plays in this data economy. And we need to see more examples. We need to see more examples of businesses that have made hard decisions. And I know that there are always the tough choices to make between maybe the engineering team and the policy team that says, you know what, let’s put people at the center. And we need to see more examples of that, the examples of the struggles and the examples of the outcomes where we can then make an argument, a very strong argument that human rights is good for business. And also when we, you know, in civil society, one of the tools that we use a lot is strategic litigation. And when we do strategic litigation, we need proof. You need to be able to state that this is what the process is. This is where there has been a deviation. This is where rights have been respected, and this is what could have been done. When we’re able to do that, one of the powerful tools that we’re able to rely on is the business and human rights framework that the Office of the High Commissioner and other partners within the ecosystem have been able to work on. To say that this is a procedure that has been discussed. This is the convention. These are the principles that have been established as possibilities for human rights in business, and this is where there’s a deviation. And because there is a standard that has been set, we can then use that standard to make an argument that someone has made the least effort. Because to be honest, where we have a lot of problems is where businesses do just enough to meet legal requirements, and there’s a huge gap between doing just enough to meet legal requirements and doing enough to respect rights. So, that gap of just enough to meet legal requirements and enough to respect rights is the space where we need to put a lot more emphasis and where we’re glad that there’s a documented process that allows us to make arguments for

Peggy Hicks: address. Great. That’s really practical in terms of where we need to focus our attention and how to do it. Thank you, Benga. The panel’s actually been really good at keeping their answers short, but we’re still already behind schedule, which I think is how these panels tend to go. So, I have a final question for the three of you, and then we’re going to open it. I hope to be able to have a little bit of time for questions from the room, as I said. So, maybe if you could just give me like a one-sentence or two-sentence answer. As we said, we’re very fortunate to have the WSIS plus 20 co-facilitators with us, and so it’d be good to hear from you how you think human rights broadly and human rights due diligence specifically can be part of WSIS implementation going forward. Shall I just go in the same order? Ambassador, would you like to jump in first?

Lavina Ramkissoon: Yeah, thank you so much. That’s quite a pertinent question, and for me, we find ourselves in such a blended moment for now, because technology is shaping culture, and culture is shaping technology, and given that is the dynamic, in addition to the fact that AI is contributing to the content online, and so are humans. Somewhere between all of these, we’ve got to find a blend between the common phrase, man and machine. So, I think you know, besides being embedded in just the sort of cultural aspect of it, the dignity, accountability, and justice really need to be the sort of cornerstone points. In addition to that, I think, you know, things like having checkpoints in place, having, you know, algorithmic transparency becomes quite key. In addition to that, you know, how exactly are we maneuvering ourselves towards an era and a society where, you know, there’s multiple humanoids amongst us functioning and engaging together with, you know, humans at the same time. What does that sort of blend, you know, in the U.S.’s world sort of look like, and are we making enough provisions for that? In addition to that, you know, I bring up child rights just purely because, you know, on the continent being the largest, youngest population, it is something that becomes quite a key, you know, embodiment for us, ensuring that, you know, there is sufficient, you know, protection, but at the same time that there is no digital divide that is widening as a result of the progress or the adoption that is actually happening on a grand scale. So, you know, one of the examples that come to mind when both the other panelists were talking was something around, you know, what if every business had to, you know, allocate, you know, be it 5%, 10% of their sort of work towards any ethical, you know, sort of focus or ethical alignment that is required or needed to happen, probably in an idealistic world perhaps, but, you know, some of the examples that, you know, I earlier mentioned, whether it be around audit, whether it be around, you know, having an assessment or having, you know, some form of index for us needs to become the sort of guideline pillars as we sort of navigate this. there is no, you know, human rights is one of those areas that is super complex but yet it is, you know, comes almost intuitively to us, you know, naturally. So we need to kind of tap more into the natural sort of reaction states that we would turn towards. Thanks. Thanks very much. A

Peggy Hicks: lot of good touchstones for us to think about as the WSIS process moves forward. Fiona, your 30

Fiona Cura-Pietre: seconds. I’m going to have two points here. I think, first of all, you also need to have this, the human rights diligence built in your close R&D station, new products that are coming up, but also far out. So, for example, with Bell Labs a while back, we realised that there was a technology shift happening with AI. So we built six pillars of responsibility for our business when it made sense for our business. So that’s far outlooking. So, and then the second point I’ve heard touched upon by both other speakers about this transparency and assessments, Nokia is part of the Global Network Initiative, which is a multi-stakeholder group. And as part of that, the companies need to go through these assessments where external auditors come in and assess your practices and policies and processes. And there’s real life cases, real life examples, and it’s really quite thorough. And we find this a very, very useful way of having, getting input, getting voices from other stakeholders who we don’t necessarily get that much input from to see what their view is on our processes and policies. So these multi-stakeholder groups, especially like the GNI are very helpful for us. And also going forward,

Peggy Hicks: we will be very helpful in the future. Great. Now, Fiona, we work closely with GNI and I totally endorse what you’ve said. And it brings a point that I often have thought during AI for Good this year, is that we have a tendency to sort of refer to companies as a group, as if they’re all doing the same things at the same level. And if we’re really going to make progress, we have to start differentiating more. And if we do that with external audits of that sort, it actually gives us a firm foundation to say, no, there are good practices or at least better practices than some. And we really want to encourage that race to the top amongst the companies to get this right. Benga, over to you. Thank you. So, two weeks ago, we had a chance of meeting with the co-facilitators, I’m speaking of the IGF leadership panel, and we spoke to the place of human rights in the internet we want. And that leads me to the two points I want to make. Number one is the fact that as we continue with the research process, we must realize that when we have conversations about human rights and dignity, it has to be by default. It is not a nice add-on, it is not a tokenistic topic, it is not something we put campaign dollars behind, it is a default that we require. And I think the second is that there are frameworks for human rights, you know, in business, and the due diligence that supports that, that states already agreed to, that I believe we can do very easily into the WSIS implementation process, and the review process of WSIS itself, the IGF, and other elements of all the UN processes. Thank you. Thanks very much. So, I feel like it’s been a little bit rapid fire. I hope you’ve, we’ve been able to condense a lot of information into that short conversation. We do have about five minutes, so I can take a couple of questions and then sort of refer them back to the panel quickly. Who would like to come in? Hands? On the end there, please.

Participant: Hi, my name is Josiane with Child Rights and Business in UNICEF, and thank you, Ambassador, for sort of referencing child rights as well. And I just wanted to ask, you know, we see, I think, also in exploring the many startups that are present in this, in this forum, the potential also risks, human rights risks associated with small tech, and also many countries and governments being quite concerned with economic growth and preserving innovation. The panelists did kind of gesture to this, but I was wondering, what is the role of sort of mandatory measures in this space, in relation to some of those arguments that you’re mentioning, that human rights are also good for business, and those cases where actually it is? requiring costs and investment from companies to build in these measures? What is the balance, you think, between the mandatory measures and the voluntary measures, and what are some examples of good practice in encouraging the scale-up of these approaches?

Peggy Hicks: That’s a nice, meaty question, both on the child rights side, but more generally as well, I think, about the balance between. Maybe one other question, and I’m going to throw it back. Please.

Anna Oosterlinck: Sorry. Thank you. I’m Anna from Article 19. I just wanted to pick up on one point that was made by Fiona from Nokia, which I fully agree with, is that human rights need to be built in across a full lifecycle of all technologies, so ideally from pre-design all the way to export, trade, and further use. The second point I’d like to make is that for us, what would be important in terms of the WSIS process, review process, is to really anchor the UNGPs in there very clearly, because human rights-based language is, at the moment in the WSIS framework, fairly light, so we’ve been advocating very strongly with the co-facilitators to hopefully, throughout the process, to strengthen the human rights-based approach, but specifically, I think, the UN guiding principles, if we can really explicitly put those in and then build off the work from the OCHR, including from BTEC, and several great reports from UN special procedures, etc., then that would be, I think, a great point to start from. Thank you. Great. You must guess that we

Peggy Hicks: actually endorse that as well from the side of the UN Human Rights Office. Thank you very much. So, I’m going to go back to the panel. I’m sorry we don’t have more time, but I do think that the co-facilitators want to give them the last word, and we want to get people out of the room marginally on time. So, Ambassador, do you want to come back on the question that was asked about child rights and mandatory human rights due diligence for companies? Yeah. So, from an African

Lavina Ramkissoon: Union perspective, we obviously have two things in play at the moment, one being the digital transformation plan and the other being the Agenda 2063. So, given those two are the focus areas, a lot of everything is driven towards that. If you have to unpack what they mean and take a deeper dive into it, A lot of it speaks towards either an economic sort of impact or a balanced sort of narrative that is needed across the continent. So when we have to talk about impact towards a living standard, impact towards healthcare, impact towards GDP of a particular country or us as a continent, whatever the case may be, I think those are the sort of areas that everyone is nudging towards. In addition to that, I think when we have to talk about it from a corporate perspective, there are definite areas of alignment that can happen between what is happening on a sort of global scale, continental and, you know, internal. And therein always lies the sort of balance between the sort of digital, economic, social and infrastructural issues. And there is a framework that was developed a while ago around the four of these in particular that I would encourage you guys to perhaps have a look at in addition to it.

Peggy Hicks: Great. Thanks very much. Fiona, over to you. Obviously, in the EU context of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which I’m sure is informing your efforts in this area.

Fiona Cura-Pietre: Yeah. I mean, we have been supportive of CSF triple D or the iterations, some of the iterations that we’ve seen. So it often focuses on supply chain, which is, of course, important. But I think for us, what’s very important is it’s the guidance whenever it will appear and where it will appear for our sector, because a lot of the time, the guidance is for supply chain, which is critical. I’m not saying that’s not critical, but when we’re talking about the use of technology, that’s a different set of things. So we are supportive, definitely, of this mandatory due diligence, but that’s not the only reason we do it. We’re doing it now anyway, before there’s been a law. So yes, I think it’s helpful for level playing fields and these sorts of things. But it’s something that we do anyway, as of now, because we feel it’s the right thing to do as of now.

Peggy Hicks: Great, thanks very much. Benga? Uh, thanks. Just to emphasize again that the guiding principles exist. They have, you know, very useful language that we can engage in the process and that human rights is central. We must emphasize as much as possible, you know, any opportunity that we have in this process and implementation, human rights must be by default. Thanks very much. I just want to thank the panelists. I have to say, I walked into the room quite worried about how this whole virtual panel would work. I have to thank the tech people for seamlessly, it felt like they were in the room with us and I felt like the conversation pulled itself together very well. As I said, we’re very happy to have the co-facilitators with us, excellencies. I wanted to give you the floor, the last word in this conversation. If you have anything you would like to say about the next steps or how we can contribute or, you know, what you take away from this conversation. I’m not sure which of you would like to go first.

Suela Janina: Thank you very much. First, allow me to thank you for organizing this panel. It has been really fruitful. If you started with this kind of remark, Peggy, I think that it has really fulfilled the expectations. Uh, when we talk about this issue, we feel also the need to have more time. So, but let’s put it like a way that we will be continuing discussing this. We started in little storm. We have heard a lot of expectations, especially starting from the input that we have presented with the elements paper, but I need all the time to repeat the thing that it’s like incremental engagement that we need to have. So, we started with something and we need also to have into account some constraints in terms of of, of, of time, but it is important that, uh, what also has been mentioned by, uh, by the panelists is that, uh, the discussion in human rights in the WSIS, uh, plus 20 review is discussion. And the principle that we take with us also that has been also mentioned in all UN document is that human rights and fundamental freedoms should be protected online and offline in the same way. So we have seen, and for me, the picture that we take from this discussion is also a picture of reality that we are facing, each of us in our everyday life, that we have this great impact of technology on human rights in both ways. Technologies can be enables of human rights and we have seen it right in the access to information. But from the other side, if we don’t have the safeguards, they can be damaging or can be just infringing the enjoyment of freedoms and human rights. So we need to see that in both ways. A second element that it is important in my view is the fact that this enjoyment or protection of human rights should be seen in whole cycle of development of the technology. Another important element in my view is the fact that we need also to address, it has been mentioned by several of the panelists and also from the discussion we have heard, of categories in vulnerable situation, children, persons with disabilities, but also when we speak about women and girls empowerment. Because if we see today the big digital divide in gender that we have, we need really to focus on that element. So building also on some previous discussions we had at IGF, also the fact that there is a need also to more precisely refer to some UN documents that have set also the standard which we need not to lower but to uphold and to enrich them. So we have taken note of all of this and also one element that may be also important for yourself is the fact that we see also a growing role and we need to identify a role that the Office of High Commission should have in this discussion and also on the future improved architecture of UN in terms of also bringing the experience and expertise that you have on this discussion. So for the time being we have had a lot of useful inputs. What we need now is to go on the concrete stage of discussing the language on the zero draft that we are going to prepare. So the last call from my side it will be please be engaged and active with written inputs. We have also extended the deadline in order to accommodate the needs of different stakeholders to be prepared and to present them but we’ll be in contact through different ways in order that we see the ambition to have an outcome that will reflect also the objective to promote and to

Ekitela Lokaale: protect human rights. Thank you Peggy, thank you Thibaut and the panelists as well. First let me thank the panelists. I think they have done a great job in this discussion within the short time that we had. Now for us as co-facilitators we are at the point where all of us are engaged in the review of the WSIS and when you are reviewing an important process such as WSIS it’s important to keep in mind the original vision why we had it in the first place. there’s always the risk of running into specifics and then, you know, getting your eyes off the reason why we had WSIS in the first place, which is that we wanted a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. So even as we dig deep, you know, into important concepts such as human rights due diligence and so on, let us always keep in mind that even as we speak today, 20 years after WSIS, 2.6 billion people in the world are not connected. And, you know, in human rights, it’s always important to ask ourselves who is left behind and why? Because if we don’t ask that question, then you go on and on, on and on, you know, further widening the divide, further entrenching the divide, because then, you know, you sharpen, you know, the other aspects. So I think it’s important for us to remind ourselves. And there is no more human rights-centered vision in a lot of the outcome documents that we’ve produced as a UN community than the WSIS one, because what’s the essence of human rights? Is it not the inherent dignity of the human person? So when the vision says, you know, people-centered, inclusive, yeah, and development-oriented, I think it captures the whole essence of human rights. That’s my first point. Second, in both process and outcome, I think it’s important that we make sure that everybody gets to participate, there is accountability, there is non-discrimination in the process, you know, there’s equality and rule of law. Director, OCHR, and UHKM. My challenge to the rest of us, I speak as a human rights lawyer in addition to being a diplomat, is to keep asking ourselves why the 2.6 billion people are still not connected 20 years after we adopted the WSIS vision. So until and unless we look at the fundamentals that keep 2.6 billion people off the internet, we’ll continue building upon all these other concepts and we’ll not be crossing the digital divide. Then finally, we’ve been trying to live up to the expectation of a human rights-based approach in our engagement, which is why, for example, in creating the multi-stakeholder sounding board, we’ve made every attempt to make sure that different stakeholders from the technical community, civil society, women, men, I don’t think we’re lucky this time to get children on board, but I think that’s ambitious for next time. But it’s an improvement to create spaces where all these other groups, which are often left behind, are able to participate. We take your point that the progressive language on human rights, which has been adopted in recent outcome documents. needs to find its way into the zero draft and so on. As my colleague has said, it might not have been apparent in the elements paper, but it’s every intention on our part to make sure that it is strengthened, but not in a way that makes the process unnecessarily contentious, because sometimes as human rights people, and I’m one of them, like I said, we drum the language and in the negotiation process, we problematize it instead of, and it’s common, it should not be one that’s contentious. So I think I’ll give you the commitment on our part as co-facilitators to make sure that human rights runs through the document and really forms the basis of whatever outcomes will be put forward, because that’s what the WSIS vision is all about. People-centered, inclusive, development-oriented. So thank you again for having us. Thank you so much, both ambassadors. I think everyone in the room, I hope, shares my sense of gratitude, really, that we have two people who are looking at this in such an open, thoughtful, and human rights-based approach. I mean, it was almost like we could have written the talking

Peggy Hicks: points for some of what both of you were saying on these things in terms of the elements of the human rights-based approach. And I have to say, I’m not sure if in these rooms that’s always been so easy. So it’s really, really gratifying to hear the commitment that you have to looking at this. And Ambassador, I especially appreciate it. I had already written down that the approach that you’re taking is a forward-looking one, which is very important because we want something that will deliver for children, as the ambassador has emphasized. But also, it’s also looking behind. It’s also looking at who is being left behind currently and how we actually use this process to move things forward in a way that creates greater equity and greater inclusion. going forward. So I think those are critical points that you’ve made. We are very committed to the ongoing dialogue. Thanks again to the European Union and African Union for their partnership on this event and to all of you for participating. Very good to be with you today. Maybe a round of applause for our panelists.

Agreement points

Human Rights Due Diligence is essential for technology development and business practices

Speakers

– Lavina Ramkissoon
– Gbenga Sesan
– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

HRDD provides a framework for surfacing hidden harms and making invisible impacts visible

HRDD helps balance people and profits by ensuring business models respect human dignity

HRDD is the right thing to do and demanded by stakeholders including regulators, investors, and customers

Human rights due diligence is about thinking through technology impacts on people in advance

Summary

All speakers agree that Human Rights Due Diligence is a crucial framework for identifying potential harms, balancing business interests with human dignity, and ensuring responsible technology development through proactive impact assessment.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Human rights should be integrated throughout the entire technology lifecycle

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Anna Oosterlinck

Arguments

Human rights protection should be considered throughout the entire technology lifecycle

HRDD should be built into R&D processes for both near-term and far-out technology development

Human rights need to be built in across a full lifecycle of all technologies, so ideally from pre-design all the way to export, trade, and further use

Summary

There is strong consensus that human rights considerations must be embedded from the earliest stages of technology development through to deployment and use, rather than being added as an afterthought.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Trust is fundamental to the success of digital technologies and business models

Speakers

– Gbenga Sesan
– Fiona Cura-Pietre

Arguments

Trust is fundamental to the data economy – respecting rights builds trust which enables business success

It’s more profitable to implement HRDD than deal with reputational damage from violations

Summary

Both speakers recognize that trust, built through respecting human rights, is essential for sustainable business success in the digital economy, and that proactive rights protection is more cost-effective than dealing with violations.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Privacy and data protection

Human rights must be embedded by default in WSIS processes, not as optional additions

Speakers

– Gbenga Sesan
– Ekitela Lokaale
– Anna Oosterlinck

Arguments

Human rights must be embedded by default, not as a tokenistic add-on to the WSIS process

Human rights-based approach should guide both process and outcomes with accountability and non-discrimination

Human rights language in current WSIS framework is fairly light and needs strengthening with explicit reference to UN Guiding Principles

Summary

There is consensus that human rights should be fundamental to the WSIS Plus 20 review process rather than peripheral considerations, with calls for strengthening the human rights framework and making it central to both process and outcomes.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Vulnerable populations require special attention in digital rights protection

Speakers

– Lavina Ramkissoon
– Suela Janina

Arguments

Child rights protection is crucial given Africa’s young population and need to prevent widening digital divides

Vulnerable categories including children, persons with disabilities, and women need special focus

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the need for special focus on protecting vulnerable populations, particularly children, persons with disabilities, and women, in the context of digital rights and preventing digital divides.

Topics

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

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers frame human rights as an enabling and guiding force for technology development rather than a barrier, emphasizing its role in maximizing benefits while mitigating risks.

Speakers

– Lavina Ramkissoon
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

Human rights serves as a compass for innovation rather than an obstacle

Human rights serves as a tool to deliver benefits from digital technology and AI while avoiding risks

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers recognize that true human rights protection goes beyond mere legal compliance and requires companies to proactively adopt ethical practices regardless of regulatory requirements.

Speakers

– Gbenga Sesan
– Fiona Cura-Pietre

Arguments

There’s a gap between meeting legal requirements and actually respecting rights that needs emphasis

Companies should implement HRDD regardless of legal requirements because it’s the right approach

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of institutional commitment and documented processes for effective human rights implementation, whether for internal decision-making or external accountability.

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Gbenga Sesan

Arguments

Management support and CEO-approved policies are essential for making human rights-based decisions

Documented processes enable strategic litigation and provide proof when rights violations occur

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Business case for human rights is stronger than compliance case

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Gbenga Sesan

Arguments

It’s more profitable to implement HRDD than deal with reputational damage from violations

Trust is fundamental to the data economy – respecting rights builds trust which enables business success

Explanation

It’s somewhat unexpected to see such strong consensus between a corporate representative and a civil society advocate that human rights protection is not just morally right but actually more profitable than violations. This alignment suggests a maturation in understanding the business value of human rights.

Topics

Human rights | Economic

Technology has dual nature requiring balanced approach

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Thibaut Kleiner

Arguments

Technology can both enable human rights through access to information and infringe rights without proper safeguards

Current world reality includes surveillance, deprivation of choice and voice, and misinformation risks

Explanation

The consensus between EU and co-facilitator perspectives on acknowledging both the benefits and serious risks of technology represents a balanced, realistic approach that avoids both techno-optimism and techno-pessimism.

Topics

Human rights | Development | Cybersecurity

Need for mandatory measures while maintaining voluntary leadership

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Participant

Arguments

Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive represents move toward mandatory requirements, though guidance for technology sector use cases still needed

Balance needed between mandatory and voluntary measures, with consideration for economic growth and innovation concerns

Explanation

The consensus between a corporate representative supporting mandatory measures and a participant raising concerns about balancing mandatory/voluntary approaches suggests a nuanced understanding that regulation and voluntary action can be complementary rather than opposing forces.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

There is remarkably strong consensus among all speakers on the fundamental importance of human rights in technology development, the need for proactive due diligence processes, and the business case for rights protection. Key areas of agreement include the necessity of embedding human rights throughout technology lifecycles, the importance of trust in digital economies, and the need to strengthen human rights frameworks in international processes like WSIS Plus 20.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for policy development. The alignment between diverse stakeholders (government, business, civil society, international organizations) suggests strong foundation for advancing human rights in technology governance. The consensus on both moral and business cases for human rights protection indicates potential for sustainable implementation without requiring stakeholders to choose between ethics and economics.

Different viewpoints

Mandatory vs Voluntary Human Rights Due Diligence Requirements

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Participant

Arguments

Companies should implement HRDD regardless of legal requirements because it’s the right approach

Balance needed between mandatory and voluntary measures, with consideration for economic growth and innovation concerns

Summary

Fiona advocates that companies should proactively implement HRDD because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of legal mandates, while the participant emphasizes the need to balance mandatory measures with economic growth and innovation concerns, particularly for startups and small tech companies.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Scope of Human Rights Due Diligence Implementation

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Gbenga Sesan

Arguments

HRDD must be integrated into sales approval processes before deals are finalized to maintain leverage

Human rights must be embedded by default, not as a tokenistic add-on to the WSIS process

Explanation

While both speakers strongly support HRDD, they have different perspectives on implementation scope. Fiona focuses on specific business process integration (sales approval), while Gbenga advocates for broader, default integration across all processes. This represents a tactical vs strategic approach difference that wasn’t expected given their shared commitment to human rights.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus on the importance of human rights due diligence, with only minor disagreements on implementation approaches. The main area of disagreement centered on the balance between mandatory and voluntary measures, particularly regarding economic impacts on innovation.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high implications for practical implementation. The consensus on principles but differences on methods suggests that while there’s strong political will for human rights integration, the technical details of implementation will require careful negotiation to balance various stakeholder concerns, particularly around mandatory requirements and their economic impacts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers frame human rights as an enabling and guiding force for technology development rather than a barrier, emphasizing its role in maximizing benefits while mitigating risks.

Speakers

– Lavina Ramkissoon
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

Human rights serves as a compass for innovation rather than an obstacle

Human rights serves as a tool to deliver benefits from digital technology and AI while avoiding risks

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers recognize that true human rights protection goes beyond mere legal compliance and requires companies to proactively adopt ethical practices regardless of regulatory requirements.

Speakers

– Gbenga Sesan
– Fiona Cura-Pietre

Arguments

There’s a gap between meeting legal requirements and actually respecting rights that needs emphasis

Companies should implement HRDD regardless of legal requirements because it’s the right approach

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of institutional commitment and documented processes for effective human rights implementation, whether for internal decision-making or external accountability.

Speakers

– Fiona Cura-Pietre
– Gbenga Sesan

Arguments

Management support and CEO-approved policies are essential for making human rights-based decisions

Documented processes enable strategic litigation and provide proof when rights violations occur

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) serves as a compass for innovation rather than an obstacle, providing a framework to surface hidden harms and make invisible impacts visible in technology development

Trust is fundamental to the data economy – respecting human rights builds trust which enables business success, creating a win-win scenario where companies can be profitable while respecting people’s rights

HRDD must be integrated early in business processes (before sales are finalized) to maintain leverage, requires strong management support, and needs continuous training across organizations

Human rights must be embedded by default in the WSIS Plus 20 review process, not as a tokenistic add-on, with explicit reference to UN Guiding Principles

2.6 billion people remain unconnected 20 years after WSIS, highlighting the need to focus on fundamental barriers and ask ‘who is left behind and why?’

Technology can both enable human rights through access to information and infringe rights without proper safeguards, requiring protection throughout the entire technology lifecycle

Vulnerable populations including children, persons with disabilities, and women need special focus, particularly given concerns about widening digital divides

The original WSIS vision of people-centered, inclusive, development-oriented information society inherently embodies human rights principles and should guide the review process

Resolutions and action items

Co-facilitators committed to strengthening human rights language in the zero draft of WSIS Plus 20 review, building on progressive language from recent UN documents like the Global Digital Compact

Co-facilitators extended the deadline for written inputs to accommodate different stakeholders’ needs for preparation

Participants called to actively engage with written inputs for the zero draft preparation process

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to have a growing role in future discussions and improved UN architecture for digital governance

Need for more case studies and documented examples of businesses making human rights-based decisions to strengthen the argument that human rights is good for business