Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on operationalizing multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance, particularly in preparation for the WSIS+20 review process. The session was co-hosted by Global Partners Digital and the Global Network Initiative, bringing together experts from various sectors to examine how multi-stakeholder principles have evolved since the original WSIS summits.

Carl Gahnberg from the Internet Society emphasized that multi-stakeholder governance should be viewed as a principle rather than a rigid model, noting that many successful projects already operate as multi-stakeholder collaborations without being formally labeled as such. He highlighted the functional value of inclusive processes, particularly in internet development projects like community networks that require collaboration across sectors. Jhalak Kakkar from India’s Centre for Communication Governance discussed how multi-stakeholder understanding varies across international and national contexts, emphasizing the importance of meaningful engagement rather than checkbox activities. She stressed the need for genuine consensus-building processes and highlighted challenges in ensuring Global South voices are heard in international negotiations.

Ian Sheldon from the Australian government provided a detailed case study of Australia’s structured multi-stakeholder consultation process for the WSIS review. This process included capacity-building workshops to educate stakeholders about government processes, transparent drafting sessions for policy documents, and ongoing collaboration with both domestic and international communities. Thobekile Matimbe from Paradigm Initiative shared insights from African contexts, noting the disconnect between government participation in global processes and local awareness, emphasizing the importance of transparency and trust-building.

The discussion concluded with recognition that while multi-stakeholder approaches require significant effort, they produce higher-quality policy outcomes and should be expanded beyond traditional internet governance issues to broader digital policy areas.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Evolution and operationalization of multi-stakeholder governance since WSIS**: The panel explored how multi-stakeholder approaches have developed from principles into practice over the past 20 years, emphasizing that multi-stakeholderism is a governance principle that can be implemented through various models rather than a single prescribed approach.

– **Functional versus normative value of multi-stakeholder processes**: Speakers emphasized that multi-stakeholder engagement provides instrumental benefits beyond just being the “right thing to do” – it produces better policy outcomes, reduces blind spots, and improves implementation success through broader buy-in and trust-building.

– **National-level implementation challenges and successes**: The discussion highlighted significant variations in how countries operationalize multi-stakeholder principles, with Australia’s structured WSIS review consultation process serving as a detailed case study of effective government-led multi-stakeholder engagement, including capacity building for participants.

– **Barriers to meaningful participation**: Key challenges identified included the tendency for multi-stakeholder processes to become “checkbox exercises,” limited financial resources for Global South participation in international processes, and the need for transparency, consensus-building, and inclusive representation beyond just having stakeholders “in the room.”

– **Future directions for embedding multi-stakeholder approaches**: The conversation explored how to better integrate these principles into broader digital governance issues beyond traditional internet governance, the importance of documenting and sharing successful models, and the need for continued capacity building and relationship-building between stakeholders.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine how multi-stakeholder principles established through WSIS and other processes are being translated into practical governance approaches at national, regional, and international levels. The session sought to identify what has worked well, ongoing challenges, and strategies for strengthening multi-stakeholder engagement in digital governance, particularly in preparation for the WSIS+20 review.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, characterized by genuine knowledge-sharing and mutual learning among participants. While speakers acknowledged significant challenges and shortcomings in current multi-stakeholder implementation, the overall atmosphere was optimistic and solution-oriented. The tone became particularly engaged when discussing concrete examples like Australia’s consultation process, with participants expressing enthusiasm about documenting and replicating successful models. The conversation reflected a community of practice dynamic, with speakers building on each other’s insights and expressing gratitude for the learning opportunities.

Speakers

– **Ellie McDonald** – Works for Global Partners Digital, a civil society organisation working to ensure that human rights underpin the development, use and governance of digital technologies

– **Carl Gahnberg** – Director of Policy Development and Research at the Internet Society

– **Ian Sheldon** – Director of the Internet Governance Section at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication, Sport and the Art, Government of Australia

– **Jhalak Kakkar** – Executive Director of the Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University in Delhi

– **Thobekile Matimbe** – Senior Manager for Partnerships and Engagement at Paradigm Initiative (an organization working across the African region promoting digital rights and digital inclusion)

– **Lea Kaspar** – Works with Global Partners Digital

**Additional speakers:**

– **Eleni Hickok** – Managing Director of the Global Network Initiative (mentioned as online moderator but did not speak in the transcript)

– **Jorge Cancios** – Government representative (mentioned as being with government, from Switzerland based on context)

# Multi-Stakeholder Approaches in Internet Governance: Operationalising Principles for the WSIS+20 Review

## Executive Summary

This discussion, co-hosted by Global Partners Digital and the Global Network Initiative as part of their project “Shaping the WSIS+20 Review for a Unified Internet Multi-Stakeholderism,” brought together experts from civil society, government, technical community, and academia to examine practical implementation of multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance. The session featured speakers from Australia, India, Africa, and Switzerland, providing diverse regional perspectives on translating multi-stakeholder principles into effective governance mechanisms.

The conversation focused on moving beyond theoretical discussions toward practical implementation strategies, with participants sharing concrete examples of successful multi-stakeholder processes and identifying key challenges that remain. The discussion revealed both significant progress in operationalising multi-stakeholder approaches and persistent barriers, particularly around financing meaningful participation and ensuring quality engagement beyond superficial consultation.

## Participants and Context

**Moderator:** Ellie McDonald, Global Partners Digital

**Speakers:**

– **Carl Gahnberg**, Internet Society – providing technical community perspective on multi-stakeholder principles and implementation

– **Jhalak Kakkar**, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University Delhi – offering insights on Global South participation and transparency requirements

– **Ian Sheldon**, Australian Government – sharing detailed case study of national-level multi-stakeholder consultation processes

– **Thobekile Matimbe**, Paradigm Initiative – presenting African regional perspectives and civil society experiences

The discussion was framed around preparation for the WSIS+20 review process, with participants examining how multi-stakeholder approaches can be more effectively implemented at national, regional, and international levels.

## Key Themes and Discussions

### Multi-Stakeholder Governance as Principle, Not Model

Carl Gahnberg opened with a fundamental reframing, emphasising that “when we talk about multi-stakeholder governance, we’re really talking about a principle of governance, about how we exercise governance… there could be very different models for implementing governance towards the same principle.” This perspective allowed for recognition that different institutions – ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force, and the Internet Governance Forum – can all operate according to multi-stakeholder principles while implementing them differently.

Gahnberg stressed that the core goal is “allowing for participation of the users, producers, developers of this digital system to be part of the governance of that system,” providing a clear framework for evaluating different approaches. This principle-based understanding proved valuable throughout the discussion as it enabled speakers to explore contextual variations without being constrained by rigid model requirements.

### Implementation Beyond Formal Meetings

A significant theme emerged around recognising that multi-stakeholder governance extends far beyond formal negotiations. Gahnberg highlighted that “the actual governance process is happening outside of this room, it’s happening after the event, it’s happening at the local, the regional levels.” He emphasised the importance of making existing multi-stakeholder work more visible, noting that many successful projects already exist but aren’t formally labelled as multi-stakeholder governance.

Gahnberg pointed to community networks as a prime example: “Community networks… you cannot do community networks without having a multi-stakeholder approach because you need to have the local community, you need to have the technical people, you need to have some government regulatory framework, you need to have some private sector involvement.” This practical example demonstrated how multi-stakeholder principles are already being successfully implemented in internet development work.

### Australian National-Level Case Study

Ian Sheldon provided a detailed case study of Australia’s comprehensive multi-stakeholder consultation process for the WSIS review, which generated significant interest from other participants. The Australian approach included several innovative elements:

**Transparent Process Design**: Australia established “a standing invitation to our multi-stakeholder community to be part of a working group” and implemented “quite a number of workshops to help educate our local community on the mindset of government. What do these multilateral negotiations look like? How do they work? What are the dynamics at play?”

**Collaborative Drafting**: The process involved “opening the doors to really show some of our internal processes, really help them get their heads around what kind of positioning the Australian government might want to take” and collaborative development of policy documents with stakeholder input.

**Functional Benefits**: Sheldon emphasised practical advantages: “the stronger the process the stronger the outcomes and the more implementable they are… the quality of policy output is immeasurably improved because of the process.” He described the work as “hard work but hugely rewarding” and noted that it helps “de-risk future positioning for governments.”

**Broader Applications**: Sheldon referenced Australia’s participation in ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee and the Internet Governance Forum as examples of how these approaches extend beyond single consultations to ongoing multi-stakeholder engagement.

### Global South Perspectives and Challenges

The discussion revealed significant regional variations in multi-stakeholder implementation, with speakers highlighting particular challenges in Global South contexts.

**African Regional Context**: Thobekile Matimbe shared experiences from Paradigm Initiative’s work across Africa, noting that “at African national level, there’s no prioritisation of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance.” However, she also highlighted positive developments, particularly around trust-building through transparency.

Matimbe provided a specific example from Zambia: “there was a disconnect between what government was doing at global level… and what was actually known at local level and there was no trust but once people began to have that openness and exchange of this is what we are doing there’s this process… everybody’s like why don’t you say so so it’s like let’s have a conversation.”

**Participation and Presence Challenges**: Jhalak Kakkar emphasised critical barriers to meaningful Global South participation: “if Global South leaders, thinkers, decision makers are not in the place physically, they are not being able to influence the final outcomes… if you don’t have them in the corridors of Geneva and New York, you’re not actually going to get the outcomes, which truly reflect the needs of those regions.”

**Financing Constraints**: Both Matimbe and Kakkar highlighted that meaningful participation requires adequate financing, particularly for Global South representation in international processes. This challenge has become more acute with reduced funding availability, creating barriers to the physical presence that Kakkar identified as crucial for actual influence.

### Quality of Engagement and Transparency

A critical theme throughout the discussion was distinguishing between meaningful engagement and superficial consultation processes. Jhalak Kakkar particularly emphasised this challenge, noting that “engagement with industry tends to be meaningful while engagement with other communities often becomes a checkbox activity.”

**Requirements for Meaningful Engagement**: Kakkar argued that “true multi-stakeholder models require consensus building and iterative feedback processes, not one-time consultations.” She identified specific transparency requirements including “publishing submissions, consultation summaries, and points of convergence/divergence.”

**Technology Solutions**: Kakkar suggested that “AI technologies can potentially support decision makers in enabling more transparency despite resource constraints,” offering a potential solution to capacity limitations that prevent adequate transparency in consultation processes.

**Inclusivity Considerations**: Speakers emphasised that inclusivity must ensure diversity of perspectives within stakeholder groups, including marginalised voices, moving beyond simple category representation toward genuine diversity of experiences.

## Questions and Discussion

The session included several important questions that highlighted key implementation challenges:

**Documentation and Replication**: Jorge Cancios asked whether Australia would consider “documenting and mapping their process against established guidelines” to enable replication by other governments. He shared a Swiss example of the EID law, where “stakeholders felt excluded from the process” and “the consequences were that the law was challenged through referendum and rejected by the people,” illustrating the risks of inadequate multi-stakeholder engagement.

**Delegation Composition**: Lea Kaspar asked about “including working group members in delegations” to international negotiations. Ian Sheldon responded that Australia is “considering mixed delegations” and noted the value of having multi-stakeholder input directly available during negotiations.

**Expanding Beyond Internet Governance**: Kaspar also raised questions about applying multi-stakeholder approaches “beyond internet governance to AI, cybersecurity, and other digital policy areas.” Sheldon confirmed that the Australian model “is applicable to other policy areas” and represents broader collaborative approaches to policy development.

## Ongoing Challenges and Opportunities

Despite the productive discussion, several significant challenges remain:

**Financing Meaningful Participation**: The question of securing adequate financing for Global South participation in international processes remains critical, especially given the importance of physical presence in key negotiation spaces.

**Scaling Implementation**: While successful examples exist, scaling multi-stakeholder approaches across different regions and contexts requires continued capacity building and adaptation to local circumstances.

**Moving Beyond Consultation**: Ensuring that multi-stakeholder engagement extends beyond formal consultation to meaningful participation in implementation and ongoing governance remains challenging.

**Documentation and Learning**: The need for better documentation of successful processes to enable learning and replication across different contexts was highlighted throughout the discussion.

## Conclusion

This discussion demonstrated significant maturation in thinking about multi-stakeholder governance, moving from theoretical advocacy toward practical implementation strategies. The strong consensus on fundamental principles, combined with diverse regional experiences, provides a solid foundation for continued development of multi-stakeholder approaches.

The Australian case study offered a concrete model of effective national-level implementation, while insights from Global South contexts highlighted both challenges and opportunities for broader adoption. The emphasis on functional benefits – improved policy quality, risk mitigation, and implementation success – provides compelling arguments for expanding multi-stakeholder approaches beyond traditional internet governance issues.

As the global community prepares for the WSIS+20 review, this discussion provides valuable insights into how multi-stakeholder principles can be more effectively operationalised. The commitment by participants to continue sharing experiences and documenting successful models suggests ongoing collaborative efforts to strengthen multi-stakeholder governance for addressing digital policy challenges.

The conversation reinforced that while multi-stakeholder approaches require significant effort and resources, they produce higher-quality policy outcomes and should be expanded to address the full range of digital governance challenges facing the global community.

Ellie McDonald: Thank you for joining our session from Principles to Practices of Regionalisation. My name is Ellie McDonald and I work for Global Partners Digital. We’re a civil society organisation working to ensure that human rights underpin the development, use and governance of digital technologies. We’re co-hosting this session with the Global Network Initiative or GNI, the leading forum for accountability, shared learning, engagement and collective advocacy on government and company policies and practices at the intersection of technology and human rights. So why did we want to have this discussion today? As many of you will know, the original WSIS summits and the Working Group on Internet Governance, which evolved from them, provided a blueprint for multi-stakeholder engagement, consolidating a working definition of multi-stakeholder internet governance and a decentralised approach to the implementation of the action lines, supported by multi-stakeholder collaboration. Since then, the IGF and a range of other technical bodies and processes have continued to practice different models of multi-stakeholder governance. More recently, the NetMundial outcome document effectively captured how multi-stakeholder principles should be integrated across national, regional, multilateral and multi-stakeholder processes, and specifically how broader stakeholder input can enhance multilateral processes. So, to contribute to realising the aim of meaningful multi-stakeholder inclusion in the context of the WSIS review, GNI and GPD are running a project shaping the WSIS plus 20 review for a unified internet multi-stakeholderism, supported by the inaugural ICAN grant programme. This aims to uphold and strengthen a rights-respecting and multi-stakeholder model of internet governance as a foundation for the internet’s global, open and interoperable nature. So, with that scene setting out the way, our workshop today hopes to build on that context. We’d like to discuss how multi-stakeholder approaches are being operationalised in different settings and at different levels. Our aim is to stimulate discussion of what has worked, what challenges remain and what we should do next. So, we’re quite an intimate group, so I hope we should be able to achieve that even in the relatively short time that we have. So, we have an expert panel of speakers joining us. I’ll be relatively brief in my intros. So, starting from my left, I have Carl Ganberg, the Director of Policy Development and Research at the Internet Society. Closest to me on the left, Ian Sheldon, the Director of the Internet Governance Section at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication, Sport and the Art. That is a long one, Ian, of the Government of Australia. And then to my right, I have Jalat Kakar, the Executive Director of the Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University in Delhi. And then on my far right, Tobekele Matimbe, the Senior Manager for Partnerships and Engagement at Paradigm Initiative. And last but not least, Eleni Hickok, Managing Director of the Global Network Initiative over there is our online moderator. So, in terms of the structure, I’ll start with an initial round of questions to the speakers, but would encourage you to let me know if you’d like to react or respond to anything you’re hearing from the other panellists. And after that, we’ll open the floor for questions. I think with a quick round of questions, we should have time for a good Q&A portion. So, without further ado, I’d like to begin with a question for Karl. So, Karl, from your perspective at the Internet Society, how has the multi-stakeholder approach been operationalised in practice since the original WSIS summits? Perhaps you could focus on some examples of success as well as challenges.

Carl Gahnberg: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the introduction and thank you very much for the invitation to join this panel. I wanted to start kind of before getting into the examples to give a little bit of background context that I think plays to the title of this session, which I really like the title of this session because it points out something that I think is really important to keep in mind, that when we talk about multi-stakeholder governance, we’re really talking about a principle of governance, about how we exercise governance. So, sometimes there’s a tendency to kind of get stuck in discussions of, like, what does one model look like versus another model? And I think it’s important to acknowledge that there could be very different models for implementing governance towards the same principle. So, for instance, an institution like the ICANN or the ITF or the Internet Governance Forum or even the WSIS Forum, they might all sort of operate according to a multi-stakeholder principle of governance, but they might implement that principle in a different way and operate in different manners. So, I think that’s just good to keep in mind that what we’re really talking about is a principle around fundamentally allowing for participation of the users, producers, developers of this digital system to be part of the governance of that system. And if that’s the principle, we’re trying to figure out how do we make that happen in practice, so to speak. The second point that I wanted to raise is that, and this also goes a little bit to the fora that we’re in now, I think there’s a tendency that when we’re in fora like this, we tend to think about this being the end all of multi-stakeholder processes, that people have a seat at the table, people are here discussing and so forth. But that’s kind of a very small component of the actual governance process. The actual governance process is happening outside of this room, it’s happening after the event, it’s happening at the local, the regional levels. So, when we’re kind of pushing this message of the importance of multi-stakeholder governance and multi-stakeholder collaboration in WSIS, it’s not only to have a seat at the table at negotiations and discussions such as this one, but it’s really about enabling multiple stakeholders to be part of the implementation process as well. And I think that sometimes gets lost in these discussions. And that’s not only for a normative ideal of having everyone at the table and everyone should be sort of participating in all of that thing, it’s really for a functional perspective as well, an instrumental role of having all the stakeholders involved, because it tends to produce better outcomes if you do that. And when you think about it that way, if you think about multi-stakeholder process, not only as the kind of agenda setting events like the ones that we have today, but really about how it’s practiced out in the real world, so to speak, there’s quite a few examples of multi-stakeholder governance and multi-stakeholder collaborations that don’t necessarily get branded as such. It’s almost like a categorization error that we don’t label it, but they do happen quite frequently. And I would actually argue that the vast majority of the work that we do at the Internet Society, especially in the area of internet development, where we deploy internet exchange points or connect the unconnected, etc., the vast majority of those projects, if not all of them, are de facto multi-stakeholder projects, multi-stakeholder collaborations, and they wouldn’t work if they weren’t. So to give you a very concrete example, the work that we’re doing around community networks, which is this really cool connectivity model that I recommend everyone to learn about, which goes to effectively enabling local communities to build their own networks to then connect to the broader internet. Those community networks are typically a multi-stakeholder collaboration. They tend to be put on the agenda by civil society participants that recognize the gaps in connectivity in a country. They tend to collaborate with governments to ensure that licensing and other sort of regulatory issues are moved out of the way or conducive to deploying such networks. It’s a matter of connecting those stakeholders with private entities that might be providing the backhaul for those networks, etc. And our organization, coming from the technical community, is often involved in capacity building towards those ends, etc. So those types of projects are quite frequent, but we don’t tend to label them as multi-stakeholder collaborations. They just end up being such. So I think that’s important to recognize that they do happen and that they are practiced. And that also goes for, in many cases, countries that might not formally endorse or champion the multi-stakeholder model. We do have a lot of multi-stakeholder processes happening even in those countries. So a big part of the message around multi-stakeholder governance that we try to promote is to make it visible where we can, because that’s one of the important ideas behind ensuring that it’s included in statements around WSIS, around negotiations in the UN, etc., is to make sure that they are made visible also for those governments that might not sort of formally… embrace it today, but to recognize that it’s actually instrumentally very valuable when you’re getting to the practical implementation of digital governance. The final thing that I wanted to mention is that I started off by saying that, you know, there are different ways of how we can implement this principle of multi-stakeholder governance, and I think we’ll get to some of that today. So, how do you move it over to practice? And I think, and we’ll get to that, I’m sure, there has been some really important events of last year, not least with the NetMundial plus 10 event that tried to codify, if you will, guidelines or best practices around how do you actually conduct multi-stakeholder process? How do you sort of live the principle, if you will? And that, again, is not to, you know, saying that there’s only one blueprint that is going to work everywhere and for everyone, but rather a set of guidelines that helps you sort of question, are we actually operating in accordance with this ideal of inclusiveness and participation from all stakeholders? So, looking forward to these discussions here, but I wanted to highlight that I think we should also look at processes that we don’t necessarily call multi-stakeholder process, but are de facto operating according to this vision.

Ellie McDonald: Thanks a lot, Carl. Yeah, really found that emphasis at the end useful, as well as the point and emphasis you put on the functional, not just the normative value. I find that really useful. I’d like to turn next to Jalak. I think Carl’s given us a really helpful, broad and global view. I know you have experience both at the global level, but also in national context. So, my question for you was perhaps reflecting what you’ve heard from Carl. How has the understanding of multi-stakeholder approach evolved over time? And particularly, what kind of differences do you see in how this concept is actualized on an international versus a national level?

Jhalak Kakkar: Multi-stakeholderism in various contexts, whether it’s internationally, domestically, across various domestic jurisdictions, we see a lot of variation, which is contextual to cultural norms, but also shifting socio-political realities. You know, I was talking to a colleague from the EU, and they were talking about how across the EU, they’ve seen a dip in the level of engagement with civil society on various processes. So, I mean, where in the past, sort of in many instances, legislation and policy coming out of there was held to a certain standard of having gone through multi-stakeholder processes. So, I think there, you know, at any given moment in time, there’s an ebb and flow that we constantly see. Of course, there is an ideal of multi-stakeholderism, which is grounded on principles, which all of us in the room know, things like openness, transparency, inclusiveness, the need for consensus building. I think when we talk about openness and transparency, that’s really the process and the foundation of it, which is that you want to ensure that it’s not a checkbox activity, that it’s actually meaningful, because very often in various country contexts, we see that this interaction with, and when we talk about multi-stakeholderism, who are the stakeholders, right? We’re talking about civil society academia, researchers, we’re talking about the technical community, we’re talking about local communities in various instances, but we’re talking about industry as well. And very often, interactions with industry tend to be meaningful, but with a lot of the other communities, it tends to be a checkbox activity. And then the question is, how do we design many of these processes to ensure that they’re actually meaningful engagement? There is sometimes a resistance in certain country contexts because they feel that engaging too deeply in these conversations opens them up to criticism. But I think one sort of approach and tactic that we have increasingly found useful, which goes back to the point made earlier, is to highlight the relevance and value of this engagement, that it’s useful and impactful in operationalizing and the broader objectives that a particular policy or legislation is seeking to live up to. So I think emphasizing on the usefulness, the functionality, is perhaps a hook that we, across the multi-stakeholder community, need to leverage and emphasize to decision makers to make them feel more comfortable around the value of continuing to engage with us. I think in terms of transparency, it’s sometimes challenging because I think it depends on regulatory capacity as well as financial capacity of various regulators and institutions, because a lot of transparency, there’s a certain basic level of transparency you always, of course, want. But many, you know, we, you know, as civil society, we asked, okay, as our academia, we ask, as a very minimum, we want all submissions that go to a government during a public call be published and put online, right? But what we also want is summaries of consultations that are held, points of convergence and divergence. And sometimes some of those things start to become a little more challenging. It can seem like a very small thing, but in a regulator or a government institution that is relatively low-resourced and managing many things, sometimes these kind of things, while the wish may be there, in practice, it becomes difficult to implement. But with increasing availability of AI technologies, I think we can think about how these can be strategically used to supplement and complement and provide, you know, support to decision makers to enable more transparency. I think there’s a question about consensus building, and I think there is where the multi-stakeholder model, sort of the value of it, where it moves beyond checkboxes, where you actually ensure that there is that consensus building happening. Because very often what we’re seeing is, increasingly, that a lot of sort of closed-door meetings between governments and industries, especially in the digital technology space, happening where civil society is not in the room. Fine, we may not always need to be in the room. There may be instances where it makes sense for them to talk one-on-one. But I think it is very often just a space which is created for civil society to share their views. But there is no consensus building that happens. There is no dialogue that happens both ways. It’s a one-time, one-and-done system, rather than a sort of an iterative process of feedback, which, you know, flows into the final decision making. So I think there is a need to really think through mechanisms that enable such consensus building to really, truly operationalize the multi-stakeholder model, many of which are articulated in things like the Sao Paulo Guidelines, the NetMundia, all things that have been mentioned before. But sort of highlighting these practices and systems to governments, regulators, ministries, that actually operationalizing these things on the ground is important, and to sort of highlight to them in a particular instances what are particular steps and actions they can take. Because very often, even if the intention is there, they don’t quite know how to operationalize and facilitate truly multi-stakeholder models. And we see that even within, you know, many UN agencies which have the intentionality but don’t always know how to operationalize it in practice. And the last thing I want to end with is inclusivity, right? And, you know, it’s at the domestic level, what I want to talk about is we need to be mindful of ensuring that there are diversity of perspectives, even within civil society, academia. There’s a whole spectrum of perspectives on the table, and we need to ensure, and governments and regulators need to ensure that they’re not only engaging with those who resonate with ideas of the government, but those who may have a different or critical stance. As well as, you know, engaging with marginalized groups or groups that don’t traditionally have an opportunity to come to the table. And I think at the international level, there’s an increasing recognition, I would say, in the last several years of the need for global voice, South voices to be spotlighted and heard. And it’s interesting that it comes at a moment when there is less funding available than ever before, perhaps, to actually facilitate these voices coming to the table. Of course, hybrid mechanisms are wonderful, but all of us know that the real negotiations and the real decision making doesn’t happen in a And then we have the panel. So in the process of making these conversations, as I said, it actually happens in conversations like this. It happens in the corridors. It happens in those little meeting rooms where if Global South leaders, thinkers, decision makers are not in the place physically, they are not being able to influence the final outcomes, right? So this is a starting point. But this is really not the process that actually finally influences and dictates the outcome in those international processes. So I want us to recognize that, that there is value, of course, in ensuring that, you know, you have voices from different parts of the world, you know, from different stakeholder groups sitting at the table, at public forums. But if you don’t have them in the corridors of Geneva and New York, you’re not actually going to get the outcomes, which truly reflect the needs of those regions, because they are not in the rooms where those decisions and negotiations and those strategy meetings are happening to really influence and shape what the digital world looks like and whether it reflects the realities of the regions they come from. I’ll stop there. Thanks so much. Yeah, I really appreciate your articulation of how the digital world is changing, and I think it’s a really important part of the conversation. I think it’s a really important part of what we’re doing in the region.

Ellie McDonald: It’s a really important part of what we’re doing in the region. And I think it’s a really important part of what we’re doing in the region. I think it’s a really important part of what we’re doing in the region. And I really appreciate your kind of how each of those principles, the kind of sticky point, but the kind of functional value that each of them have on the outcome. I’m really pleased that Ian, you’re speaking next because your government has direct very recent experience of managing a really structured process for input into the WSIS review process. So I wonder if you could reflect a little bit on that, maybe share that experience of how you’re taking the approach, and I’m thinking, you know, it’s not a one-size-fits-all. And I’m wondering if you could share that experience with us. Also, looking forward, yeah, based on having undertaken that structured multi-stakeholder engagement process, how do you think stakeholders could be more effectively integrated into this WSIS review?

Ian Sheldon: Thank you. My name is Ian Sheldon. I’m the director of the intergovernance team in the Australian government. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this panel. So Australia, as you know, is one of the most diverse countries in the world. So we have a lot of different stakeholders. We have a lot of different stakeholders. And we’re really excited to be here to talk about this panel. So Australia has had a long history of multi-stakeholder processes in our policy development, in the legislative work we do, in the regulatory work we do. A lot of it’s multi-stakeholder consultation. And we were very keen to be as transparent, open, and thorough as possible in our preparation processes for the WSIS review. We’re quite fortunate in Australia. We do have a small but highly engaged community who were following the WSIS review process. So we were very keen to be as transparent, open, and thorough as possible in our preparation processes for the WSIS review process. We do have a small but highly engaged community who were following these issues, who come from a broad suite of the technical community, civil society, academia, other parts of our government system, as well as a strong youth cohort, who are all already following a lot of these things. So we started our process reasonably early, with a couple of principles that underpinned our work. We wanted to make sure that we had a strong youth cohort who were already following a lot of these things. So we started our process reasonably early, with a couple of principles that underpinned our work. We wanted to make sure that the preparatory process was as open as possible. So there was a standing invitation for anybody from our community to join a multistakeholder working group, to take part in the preparatory process, to get briefings from us, as well as share what information they may be hearing from their communities about how the WSIS process is unfolding and what they might have been hearing. So we started our process reasonably early, with a couple of principles that underpinned our work. We wanted to make sure that we had a strong youth cohort who were already following a lot of these things. We wanted to make sure that there was transparency baked in. We know that a lot of this process can be quite murky. Governments don’t particularly do a great job of explaining some of our thought processes, some of the systems that we need to work in, how we structure a lot of our work. So we ran quite a number of workshops to help educate our local community on the mindset of government. What do these multilateral negotiations look like? How do they work together? How do they work together? What do these multilateral negotiations look like? What are the dynamics at play? What does a negotiating mandate look like? A lot of these things were foreign to our community, even though they’ve been following processes like WSIS for a while, opening the doors to really show some of our internal processes, really help them get their heads around what kind of positioning the Australian government might want to take through this work. I think that was a really kind of key piece of what we were trying to do. I think that was a key piece of what we were trying to do. That was a really kind of key turning point, and it really supercharged a lot of our community’s engagement and thought process in helping us structure our thinking. A lot of this culminated in the drafting of our non-paper. So the non-paper is a really good articulation of both the Australian government’s creative kind of forward-leaning thinking, as well as a lot of the ideas that our local community brought to us as well. So that was a key turning point. So that was a key turning point. So that was a key turning point. So it was really important that this document was as multi-stakeholder driven as possible. There was quite a number of drafting sessions. We shared early drafts with our community for their feedback. We had a lot of very frank discussions about what works, what doesn’t. And then we continued to have those discussions, both domestically as well as regionally and in the community. As well as regionally and globally as well. So for us, our multi-stakeholder community is both local and domestic, but we also drew very heavily on our regional and global communities as well. Particularly in a lot of spaces where they may not have those mechanisms in their own countries to provide their thoughts and thinking. And we’re very, very happy to leverage as much of this expertise and knowledge that they were very freely happy to share with us. So I think for us, we will continue to openly collaborate. Our negotiating mandate is still being worked through. A lot of our thinking, a lot of our positioning that will be taken through into the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations are being revised as we speak. Taking in feedback from this community, taking in feedback from our local community and really trying to help shape Australia’s direction to be as robust as possible. I have to say, it was hugely rewarding, but it was a lot of hard work. And I think it very much has paid off. If you haven’t seen the document, please come see me. I’m very happy to share a copy with you and very happy to hear if you get any other thoughts on how to improve some of our positioning for this. So I guess looking forward, and I think it’s hard going third because I think a lot of the comments I was going to make have already been made. Things like the NetMundial multi-stakeholder principles are fantastic starting points. I think there’s a real opportunity here for governments looking at both the review and the implementation of the WSIS review to try and look at opportunities to bring multi-stakeholders into their processes themselves. Sometimes it’s not always feasible. Sometimes there are governments with structures which may be incompatible to community-driven policymaking, but there are lots of opportunities for governments to themselves be part of that multi-stakeholder community to bring their views, their perspectives, and help influence some of those other broader policy discussions as well. The GAC at ICANN is a fantastic example of some of those processes in play. The IGF in Oslo, again, where everybody can come together on equal footing, are really good examples of reasonably accessible mechanisms for governments to take part and learn about the value of multi-stakeholders and see the conversations that can be had, how it can improve functional policymaking and broaden some of those horizons. I think going forward it’s important to find those forums and those bridging mechanisms for government to come to share their views, perspectives, and experience, as well as have that constructive two-way dialogue because I think it’s often hard for some governments to find those sensible points. Certainly, even if ICANN or ITF are too difficult, there are courses that ISOC run to help policymakers get their heads around this fantastic digital world, what might be on offer, and help make some of those personal connections, which I think makes multi-stakeholder participation a lot easier. I think there’s certainly a lot on offer and a lot of the successes and mechanisms in place over the last 20 years are going to be a lot of the same ones that I think will take us forward for the next 20. I might leave it there and we can come back to this later. Thank you.

Ellie McDonald: Thank you so much. I’ll just pick out one element. I find that you did capacity building with the stakeholders at the start, a really cool element. Maybe we could hear a bit more about that later. I’m going to turn to Thobekile now and perhaps Thobekile you could continue on this kind of forward-looking theme and I wonder it’d be lovely to hear from you and I think all of our speakers have already picked up on how multi stakeholder principles can be better embedded so maybe and carrying on with that trend and looking forward to the WSIS review and other digital governance processes and what do you think is important?

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you so much Ellie, I’ll repeat that I’m Thobekile Matimbe and I work for Paradigm Initiative which is an organization working across the African region promoting digital rights and digital inclusion. I think picking up from I think where Ian left I was just listening to Ian I was like wow this would be super cool where I come from because what we’re seeing I think at national level is that there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and it becomes so such a complex idea for some governments at this level to be able to grasp what we’re discussing because 20 years later we’re still you know trying to you know emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholderism and thankfully because of the NetMundial you know guidelines that are coming out of this it’s quite clear that it’s important what are the benefits they are immense when looking at transparency on policy processes transparency on even you know where government governments are participating in global processes around internet governance it’s very important for trust building and we did a research as Paradigm Initiative a project that we’re working in collaboration with the Global Network Initiative and GPD and we were doing consultations at country level and we particularly focus on Zambia and at that country level what we’re trying to do we brought different stakeholders in one room including the government’s technical community we had civil society organizations in the room and the media as well and you know there was a disconnect between what government was doing at global level it was clear in that meeting it was an open conversation and what was actually known at local level and there was no trust but once people began to have that openness and exchange of this is what we are doing there’s this process there was this process and this is what we’ve been trying to do over the years towards meeting the action lines and then everybody’s like why don’t you say so so it’s like let’s have a conversation so I think multi-stakeholderism is it’s it’s something that is supposed to come on board and build trust foster you know you know buy-in from communities especially when we’re looking at any information it’s a society that is people-centric it’s very important that becomes something that is supported and promoted so that specific engagement I think was just you know a sneak peek into what else is happening other countries at least on the African continent around transparency of you know these processes and engagement and it’s important to actually you know build the capacity as well of communities and on these issues because some of the things that we’re talking about in that engagement trust me people were not aware of what it was the media was also saying look we also left behind we’re not involved and it’s good that you know the government has been at least in Zambia been engaging a lot with the private sector a lot of public private partnerships ongoing but civil society not included in that whole process so inclusion I think it’s something that is very important in the conversation of multi-stakeholderism and not just inclusion in the sense of having you know certain groups of people in a room but actually enabling that there’s meaningful participation and I think that has been elaborated enough in the Sao Paulo guidelines the importance of ensuring that these you know access and also meaningful participation and I know that there was also one of the panelists talked about the importance of ensuring access and I think financing is something finances a very important subject matter to this whole conversation to have meaningful representation and participation of global South actors I think it’s important to talk about the issue of adequate resourcing for that to happen and access is something that is very critical and important I would add and I think one of the key takeaways I think from our specific engagement in Zambia was that it was important for government to be you know more out there reaching out and you know communicating whatever is happening and even consulting even when they do submit you know recommendations at global level those should have been ideally informed by consultations at local level you know where inputs are gathered from diverse stakeholders and yeah this is why I say I was really like saying wow you know when Ian was speaking about what what initiatives that they’ve been running out as well so I think there’s something that can be lent there and obviously in terms of engagement what is having stakeholders in the room what are the immense benefits and I think for me my focus basically was on the importance of you know articulating the importance of transparency at least in the processes in those global processes they would be better shaped with you know the voices of everyone being included.

Ellie McDonald: Thank you so much Ms. Thobekile Matimbe, I think that was really useful to set us up with a few different national and global contexts too for the discussion that will follow and so I think we should have time for some questions but before we open the floor perhaps would any of the panelists like to react to anything that they’ve heard briefly?

Carl Gahnberg: It’s very briefly and I think someone mentioned it but it’s really impressive to hear about the Australian government kind of educating about the process I think that’s something that is sometimes overlooked that we can talk about all we want about participation and ensuring people are included etc but having awareness about how the process is working go a really long way to to ensuring that that can work in practice so I thought that was really interesting to hear.

Ellie McDonald: Yeah, agreed. Elena, do we have any online questions? Great, well done Australia. So participants in the room, maybe we can take a few together, yeah. Jorge, go ahead. I’m sorry but I’m Jorge Cancios with government but this is a very exciting topic and I was very interested, well I found it great how you did things in Australia and I was wondering whether you did some documenting of the process that can be shareable and whether even if you made some mapping of that process with the self-governing multistakeholder guidelines which would be exceedingly great because yeah it’s important to really show how things can be done and we are trying to do that for the Swiss IGF to do some mapping of that and yeah there would be many things to cover but just one thought as a selling point to governments which is the stronger the process the stronger the outcomes and the more implementable they are. So in my country in Switzerland it’s a bit embedded in many processes because we have, if you look at process step 10 of the Sao Paulo multistakeholder guidelines, in Switzerland you have the community powers which is the people can struck down any law if they are not agreeing, if they were not consulted, if they were not included. Obviously it’s not perfect, it’s not everything can be improved and we had a very nice example like four or five years ago we had a EID law being produced in Switzerland with all the consultations, with everything that is in built for 20, 30, 40 years in in the Swiss legislative process but it wasn’t really inclusive in the sense of really incorporating all the interested stakeholders into the process itself so they felt excluded. They garnered 50,000 signatures and in the referendum the the option, the EID option was struck down and now they learned, our friends, our colleagues from the Ministry of Justice, that they had to really include stakeholders in a much more proactive fashion and now they have worked out a different law, a different approach and finally we have again a referendum because other people, because of different reasons, are against that approach which is a more public interest approach and we will have a vote at the end of this year so we will see if this time we got it right. Really interesting. Yeah, would you like to come in?

Ian Sheldon: I mean I think the idea of mapping the process is absolutely a fantastic one. Maybe when we get a bit of breathing room between forums, and we’re back in Australia, we’ll sit down and map out some of this. We had a concept of how we thought it should work going into it, and we tried to map some of that stuff early on, but doing a bit of analysis after we’ve tested some of the products I think is going to be useful, and very happy to compare notes. Just to pick up on your second point, multistakeholderism for us, there are a lot of virtues in inclusivity and making sure we have a breadth of perspectives, but it’s also one of necessity in de-risking. Coming back to more traditional policy-making processes, it’s making sure we didn’t have blind spots, it was de-risking future positioning, and like you said, making sure that the outcome and the output is as robust as possible. For us, we hear about the virtues of multistakeholderism, but really the value is in the product, and we really saw the quality of the product improve when we broadened out our consultation, our engagement, and so I don’t think we stress that point enough when we talk about governments making use of multistakeholder processes, because they are hard work, but the quality of policy output is immeasurably improved because of the process, and I think that’s one that sometimes gets lost in the wash when we talk about this approach. Thanks.

Ellie McDonald: Thanks a lot, Ian. Yeah, I was about to ask if we have questions, so maybe we’ll take Lea’s question, and then maybe the panellists can also wrap in your conclusive remarks too, but Lea, go ahead.

Lea Kaspar: Thank you, Ellie, and thanks, everyone. My name is Lea Kasper, I’m with Global Partners Digital. My question is going to be to you, Ian, as you’re a very rare breed in actually giving us a practical case study for operationalising something we’ve been talking about in theory for many, many years, which is why I think a lot of us are looking at you and really wanting to capture how you’ve been approaching this. As a long-standing member of the UK equivalent of what you’ve been trying to do, so the UK government has a multistakeholder internet governance group that’s a standing body, which also is convened to inform UK positions on internet governance, and goes all the way up to including UK non-governmental stakeholders into their delegations at ITU conferences and elsewhere. So besides the point that it would be really great to do a comparative study on how different governments have been operationalising this when it comes to multilateral processes, because I think that’s what we’re talking about now. As someone said at the beginning, maybe the rep from ISOC, it’s really going to depend, the operationalisation will depend on where you are at the national level, depending on which issue you’re dealing with. But if we’re talking about multilateral processes, and WSIS Review being an example of that, now hopefully it goes well. I have two small questions. One is, have you already considered including members of this working group that you’ve convened to become members of your delegation as we go into WSIS negotiations? So that’s one question. And then the other one is, what are your thoughts on expanding, I want to say, the model beyond internet governance issues, although I would say that all of these issues are internet governance issues, but internet-related public policy issues such as artificial intelligence, such as cybersecurity. If you have any thoughts on how we convince governments to go beyond just, say, WSIS Review and think more broadly about applying the model.

Ellie McDonald: Thank you.

Ian Sheldon: So to the first question, yes, absolutely. It’s something that we’re considering, and I think we’re very much waiting to see what the schedule looks like from here on, and then we can start to make more concrete plans about how we operationalise a mixed delegation. To your second point, I think, yes. So frankly speaking, internally within our system, we strongly champion this model. It’s a good way to approach policymaking. There are quite a lot of other complexities that we need to balance through this process. And also, I guess in other parts of the Australian government system, it’s one that’s been deployed on non-digital issues as well. Before I came to this file, I worked in employment policy, and we used, before I learned about multi-stakeholderism and the internet’s history, we were using a very similar approach to design employment policy using kind of a mixed cohort of a taskforce to go work through these challenges. So I think I bring that up to say that the model we’re talking about here isn’t particularly unique, and I think there’s work to be done to find those common touchpoints with other policy processes that already exist in other parts of government, and try to use language that may be similar or align those processes to show that what we’re talking about here and the successes we’ve had here aren’t necessarily completely foreign to other challenges as well. So I think it’s, in theory, a lot easier to import this model to other digital challenges, but it’s something that we’re certainly turning our minds to domestically.

Ellie McDonald: Thanks. Thanks, Ian. I know we should wrap up, but I want to bring in the other panellists. I wonder if there’s anything you’d like to reflect on from what you’ve heard. But I also think that question of the kind of broader internet-related public policies and embedding these approaches there is a really interesting one. So if you’d like to reflect on that or just anything else you’ve heard, and I can save us some time. I won’t do closing remarks. So, yeah.

Thobekile Matimbe: Thank you so much, Ellie. I think my last reflections will just be that enabling and also strengthening, I mean, stakeholder models is very important. It’s important for fostering trust, and it’s also important for buy-in and support for implementation of whatever outcomes, from global processes all the way to national level.

Jhalak Kakkar: Yeah, I want to say I’m thankful for this community, because every time we sit down and talk about these things, I always learn so much, which is useful to take back into our own domestic context and sort of try to operationalise and seed, so that in future, we have a more robust mechanism feeding into these processes.

Carl Gahnberg: Yeah, thank you very much. I think just kind of concluding remarks, I would say kind of two messages that I want to leave the room with. The first one is really to consider multi-stakeholder process, sort of the value of it really beyond just the agenda setting and also to the implementation. I think that’s really, really important and sometimes get a little bit lost. And the second part is that there is a value of this information exchange that we’re doing now. We learned about the Australian case, for instance, about some practices there. And I think it’s, in a way, it’s kind of to be, I don’t know, have a positive outlook to these efforts and have a little bit of leeway when they’re trying to be implemented. And I think the NetMundial principles are quite, or guidelines are quite helpful in that they’re kind of helping you do better. And the model that worked in Australia for this consultation, I think that can inspire other countries to do something similar. It doesn’t have to be identical, but it might further improve it or try to do something similar. So to kind of have a glass half full type of approach and recognize that I think many actors are trying to do the right thing. It’s not always easy to put multi-stakeholder into practice. The guidelines are helpful for that. But to recognize that it’s kind of a principle that we’re striving for. We might never sort of reach perfection, but getting there is part of the implementation.

Ellie McDonald: Truly thanks to the panelists. I think we’ve had this conversation a lot this week, so it can sometimes feel tedious, but I think you’ve really brought some fresh and new ideas. And I think chronicling how this all goes and hearing more about all of these cases when we do have a breath of fresh air will be really useful. And we hope also that GNI GPD project, which is fostering some national level consultations that Ms. Thobekile Matimbe mentioned, the one in Zambia. We hope we can also share some of the results from that. So thank you, everyone. Wishing you a good rest of your day. Thank you. Recording stopped. Thank you for tuning in.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder governance as a principle rather than a rigid model

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Ian Sheldon

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance is fundamentally a principle of governance about how we exercise governance, not just one specific model

Different institutions like ICANN, ITF, IGF can all operate according to multi-stakeholder principles but implement them differently

The model can be expanded by finding common touchpoints with existing policy processes in other government areas

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that multi-stakeholder governance should be understood as a flexible principle that can be implemented in various ways across different institutions and contexts, rather than a one-size-fits-all model.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Importance of capacity building and education in multi-stakeholder processes

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Ian Sheldon
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Government education about multi-stakeholder processes and their value is essential for broader adoption

The Australian process included capacity building to help stakeholders understand government processes and multilateral negotiations

Multi-stakeholder approaches foster trust building and buy-in for implementation of outcomes

Summary

All three speakers agree that educating stakeholders about processes and building their capacity to participate meaningfully is crucial for successful multi-stakeholder governance implementation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Multi-stakeholder processes extend beyond agenda-setting to implementation

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance extends beyond agenda-setting events to real-world implementation at local and regional levels

Multi-stakeholder approaches foster trust building and buy-in for implementation of outcomes

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that multi-stakeholder engagement is not just about having seats at negotiation tables but about ensuring stakeholder involvement in actual implementation of policies and outcomes.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Transparency as a fundamental requirement for meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Ian Sheldon
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Transparency requires publishing submissions, consultation summaries, and points of convergence/divergence

Australia implemented a structured multi-stakeholder process for WSIS review with transparency, education, and open participation

There’s often a disconnect between what governments do at global level and what’s known at local level, creating trust issues

Summary

All three speakers agree that transparency in processes, including publishing submissions and maintaining open communication, is essential for building trust and enabling meaningful participation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from Global South contexts highlight the challenge of superficial engagement with civil society and other non-industry stakeholders, contrasting meaningful industry engagement with checkbox exercises for other communities.

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Engagement with industry tends to be meaningful while engagement with other communities often becomes a checkbox activity

At African national level, there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of adequate funding and physical presence for Global South stakeholders to have real influence in international processes, not just token participation.

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Physical presence in negotiation spaces like Geneva and New York is crucial for actual influence on outcomes

Meaningful participation requires adequate resourcing and financing, especially for Global South representation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers represent developed country approaches that have institutionalized multi-stakeholder engagement through formal structures and processes, including stakeholder participation in official delegations.

Speakers

– Ian Sheldon
– Lea Kaspar

Arguments

Australia implemented a structured multi-stakeholder process for WSIS review with transparency, education, and open participation

UK government has established a standing multistakeholder internet governance group that informs UK positions and includes non-governmental stakeholders in delegations

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Multi-stakeholder processes already exist but are not labeled as such

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Ian Sheldon

Arguments

Many successful multi-stakeholder projects exist but aren’t labeled as such, particularly in internet development work like community networks

The model can be expanded by finding common touchpoints with existing policy processes in other government areas

Explanation

Both speakers recognize that multi-stakeholder approaches are already being used in various contexts (community networks, employment policy) without being formally labeled as such. This suggests the model is more widely applicable and already practiced than commonly recognized.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Functional value of multi-stakeholder processes for policy quality

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Ian Sheldon
– Jhalak Kakkar

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder processes should focus on enabling participation of users, producers, and developers in the governance of digital systems

Multi-stakeholder processes improve policy quality and help de-risk future positioning for governments

True multi-stakeholder models require consensus building and iterative feedback processes, not one-time consultations

Explanation

There’s unexpected consensus across different stakeholder perspectives (technical community, government, civil society) that multi-stakeholder processes have clear functional benefits beyond just normative ideals – they actually produce better policy outcomes.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on fundamental principles of multi-stakeholder governance, including its value as a flexible principle rather than rigid model, the importance of transparency and capacity building, and the need for meaningful rather than superficial engagement. There’s also agreement on practical challenges, particularly around funding and inclusion of Global South voices.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on principles and challenges, with constructive differences mainly around implementation approaches based on different national contexts. This strong agreement suggests a mature understanding of multi-stakeholder governance that could inform future WSIS review processes and broader digital governance initiatives.

Different viewpoints

Current state of multi-stakeholder implementation globally

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Many successful multi-stakeholder projects exist but aren’t labeled as such, particularly in internet development work like community networks

At African national level, there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance

Summary

Gahnberg presents an optimistic view suggesting multi-stakeholder processes are already happening frequently but aren’t recognized as such, while Matimbe presents a more challenging reality where governments, particularly in Africa, struggle to understand or prioritize multi-stakeholder approaches even 20 years after WSIS

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Effectiveness of current engagement mechanisms

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Carl Gahnberg

Arguments

Engagement with industry tends to be meaningful while engagement with other communities often becomes a checkbox activity

Many successful multi-stakeholder projects exist but aren’t labeled as such, particularly in internet development work like community networks

Summary

Kakkar emphasizes systemic problems with current engagement being superficial checkbox exercises, while Gahnberg focuses on successful examples that demonstrate the approach is working in practice

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Optimism vs. realism about multi-stakeholder progress

Speakers

– Carl Gahnberg
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Many successful multi-stakeholder projects exist but aren’t labeled as such, particularly in internet development work like community networks

At African national level, there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are advocates for multi-stakeholder approaches, yet they present fundamentally different assessments of current progress. Gahnberg’s optimistic framing suggests the approach is already working but needs better recognition, while Matimbe’s experience suggests basic understanding and implementation remain significant challenges

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers showed remarkable consensus on principles and goals of multi-stakeholder governance, with disagreements primarily centered on assessment of current implementation effectiveness and regional variations in progress

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers fundamentally agree on the importance and value of multi-stakeholder approaches but differ in their assessment of how well these approaches are currently working in practice. This suggests a mature field where practitioners agree on direction but have different experiences with implementation challenges, which could actually strengthen collective advocacy by providing multiple perspectives on the same goals

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from Global South contexts highlight the challenge of superficial engagement with civil society and other non-industry stakeholders, contrasting meaningful industry engagement with checkbox exercises for other communities.

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Engagement with industry tends to be meaningful while engagement with other communities often becomes a checkbox activity

At African national level, there’s no prioritization of multi-stakeholderism and governments struggle to grasp its importance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of adequate funding and physical presence for Global South stakeholders to have real influence in international processes, not just token participation.

Speakers

– Jhalak Kakkar
– Thobekile Matimbe

Arguments

Physical presence in negotiation spaces like Geneva and New York is crucial for actual influence on outcomes

Meaningful participation requires adequate resourcing and financing, especially for Global South representation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers represent developed country approaches that have institutionalized multi-stakeholder engagement through formal structures and processes, including stakeholder participation in official delegations.

Speakers

– Ian Sheldon
– Lea Kaspar

Arguments

Australia implemented a structured multi-stakeholder process for WSIS review with transparency, education, and open participation

UK government has established a standing multistakeholder internet governance group that informs UK positions and includes non-governmental stakeholders in delegations

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder governance should be viewed as a principle of governance rather than a single rigid model, allowing for different implementation approaches across various institutions and contexts

Successful multi-stakeholder processes extend beyond agenda-setting meetings to real-world implementation at local and regional levels, with many effective projects already operating under multi-stakeholder principles without being formally labeled as such

Australia’s structured approach to WSIS review preparation demonstrates the practical value of multi-stakeholder processes, including transparency, capacity building for stakeholders, and iterative consultation that improved policy quality and helped de-risk government positioning

Meaningful participation requires more than checkbox consultations – it needs consensus building, iterative feedback processes, adequate financing (especially for Global South participation), and physical presence in key negotiation spaces

Multi-stakeholder approaches provide both normative value (inclusivity, transparency) and functional value (better outcomes, trust building, implementation buy-in), with the functional benefits often being more persuasive to governments

There are significant disparities in multi-stakeholder implementation between regions, with some African countries showing limited prioritization while others like Australia demonstrate comprehensive engagement models

The NetMundial guidelines and São Paulo principles provide helpful frameworks for operationalizing multi-stakeholder processes, offering practical guidance for governments unsure how to implement these approaches

Resolutions and action items

Australia committed to considering including multi-stakeholder working group members in their WSIS negotiation delegation

Australia agreed to document and map their multi-stakeholder process for sharing with other governments, potentially comparing with NetMundial guidelines

GNI and GPD project will continue fostering national-level consultations and share results from ongoing work including the Zambia case study

Participants agreed to continue information exchange and learning from successful models like Australia’s approach to inspire similar efforts in other countries

Unresolved issues

How to secure adequate financing for meaningful Global South participation in international processes, especially given reduced funding availability

How to move beyond checkbox consultations to genuine consensus-building mechanisms in countries with limited multi-stakeholder traditions

How to scale multi-stakeholder approaches beyond internet governance to broader digital policy areas like AI and cybersecurity

How to address the disconnect between global-level government participation and local-level awareness and engagement

How to ensure meaningful inclusion of marginalized groups and diverse perspectives within civil society and academia

How to build regulatory capacity in resource-constrained environments to enable transparency and meaningful consultation processes

Suggested compromises

Recognition that multi-stakeholder implementation doesn’t need to be identical across contexts – countries can adapt the principles to their specific cultural, political, and resource constraints

Acknowledgment that perfect multi-stakeholder processes may not be achievable, but incremental improvements toward the principle are valuable

Suggestion to leverage AI technologies to supplement government capacity for transparency and consultation processes where resources are limited

Proposal to find common touchpoints between multi-stakeholder approaches and existing policy processes in other government areas to ease adoption

Recognition that some closed-door government-industry meetings may be necessary, but these should be balanced with inclusive multi-stakeholder processes

When we talk about multi-stakeholder governance, we’re really talking about a principle of governance, about how we exercise governance… there could be very different models for implementing governance towards the same principle… what we’re really talking about is a principle around fundamentally allowing for participation of the users, producers, developers of this digital system to be part of the governance of that system.

Speaker

Carl Gahnberg

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by distinguishing between multi-stakeholderism as a principle versus specific models of implementation. It moves the conversation away from rigid structural debates toward flexible, principle-based thinking that can adapt to different contexts.

Impact

This foundational insight set the tone for the entire discussion, allowing subsequent speakers to explore contextual variations without getting trapped in ‘one-size-fits-all’ thinking. It enabled Ian to later discuss Australia’s unique approach and Jhalak to explore regional variations as legitimate expressions of the same principle.

The actual governance process is happening outside of this room, it’s happening after the event, it’s happening at the local, the regional levels… it’s not only to have a seat at the table at negotiations and discussions such as this one, but it’s really about enabling multiple stakeholders to be part of the implementation process as well.

Speaker

Carl Gahnberg

Reason

This comment challenges the common assumption that multi-stakeholder governance is primarily about formal meetings and negotiations. It highlights the critical but often overlooked implementation phase where real governance happens.

Impact

This insight shifted the discussion toward practical implementation examples. It directly influenced Thobekile’s later emphasis on national-level engagement in Zambia and Ian’s focus on Australia’s domestic consultation process, moving the conversation from theoretical to practical applications.

We ran quite a number of workshops to help educate our local community on the mindset of government. What do these multilateral negotiations look like? How do they work? What are the dynamics at play? What does a negotiating mandate look like? A lot of these things were foreign to our community… opening the doors to really show some of our internal processes, really help them get their heads around what kind of positioning the Australian government might want to take.

Speaker

Ian Sheldon

Reason

This comment introduces a crucial but rarely discussed element: the need for capacity building and transparency about government processes themselves. It recognizes that meaningful participation requires understanding how the system works.

Impact

This insight became a focal point for the remainder of the discussion. Multiple participants, including Carl and Jorge, specifically praised this approach. It introduced the concept of ‘educating stakeholders about process’ as a prerequisite for meaningful engagement, which hadn’t been explicitly discussed before.

There was a disconnect between what government was doing at global level… and what was actually known at local level and there was no trust but once people began to have that openness and exchange of this is what we are doing there’s this process… everybody’s like why don’t you say so so it’s like let’s have a conversation.

Speaker

Thobekile Matimbe

Reason

This comment reveals a fundamental problem in multi-stakeholder governance: the disconnect between global participation and local awareness. It shows how transparency can immediately build trust and engagement.

Impact

This observation validated and expanded on the Australian model Ian described, showing its relevance across different contexts. It reinforced the importance of transparency and communication, and led to broader discussion about trust-building as a core function of multi-stakeholder processes.

If Global South leaders, thinkers, decision makers are not in the place physically, they are not being able to influence the final outcomes… if you don’t have them in the corridors of Geneva and New York, you’re not actually going to get the outcomes, which truly reflect the needs of those regions, because they are not in the rooms where those decisions and negotiations and those strategy meetings are happening.

Speaker

Jhalak Kakkar

Reason

This comment exposes a critical limitation of current multi-stakeholder approaches by highlighting the gap between formal inclusion and actual influence. It challenges the assumption that hybrid participation or formal representation equals meaningful participation.

Impact

This insight introduced a more critical perspective on the limitations of current approaches, balancing the optimistic examples shared by other speakers. It brought issues of power, resources, and genuine influence to the forefront, adding depth and realism to the discussion about what effective multi-stakeholder governance actually requires.

The stronger the process the stronger the outcomes and the more implementable they are… multistakeholderism for us, there are a lot of virtues in inclusivity and making sure we have a breadth of perspectives, but it’s also one of necessity in de-risking… the quality of policy output is immeasurably improved because of the process.

Speaker

Jorge Cancios and Ian Sheldon

Reason

This exchange shifts the justification for multi-stakeholder approaches from normative (it’s the right thing to do) to functional (it produces better results). This pragmatic framing makes the approach more appealing to skeptical governments.

Impact

This functional framing provided a new lens through which to view all the previous examples and challenges discussed. It offered a practical argument that governments could use internally to justify multi-stakeholder approaches, potentially addressing some of the resistance issues mentioned by other speakers.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it from theoretical advocacy for multi-stakeholder governance toward practical, nuanced implementation strategies. Carl’s opening reframing established multi-stakeholderism as a flexible principle rather than a rigid model, which enabled subsequent speakers to share diverse approaches without contradiction. Ian’s transparency about Australia’s capacity-building approach introduced a concrete model that other participants could reference and adapt. Thobekile’s Zambia example and Jhalak’s critique of Global South exclusion added important reality checks about current limitations, while the functional arguments provided pragmatic justifications for the approach. Together, these comments created a rich, multi-layered discussion that acknowledged both the potential and limitations of multi-stakeholder governance, while providing concrete pathways for improvement. The conversation evolved from ‘why multi-stakeholderism matters’ to ‘how to make it work effectively in different contexts,’ which represents a significant maturation of the discourse.

How can multi-stakeholder principles be better documented and mapped against established guidelines like the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines?

Speaker

Jorge Cancios

Explanation

This would help demonstrate practical implementation of multi-stakeholder processes and provide replicable models for other governments to follow

What are the specific mechanisms and steps that can enable true consensus building in multi-stakeholder processes rather than just checkbox consultations?

Speaker

Jhalak Kakkar

Explanation

Many processes currently involve one-way information sharing rather than iterative dialogue and consensus building, which limits the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder engagement

How can AI technologies be strategically used to supplement transparency and support decision-makers in multi-stakeholder processes?

Speaker

Jhalak Kakkar

Explanation

This could help address resource constraints that prevent regulators from providing adequate transparency in consultation processes

How can adequate financing be secured to enable meaningful participation of Global South actors in international processes?

Speaker

Thobekile Matimbe

Explanation

Physical presence is crucial for real influence in international negotiations, but funding limitations prevent Global South participation in corridor conversations where actual decisions are made

How can the Australian multi-stakeholder model be expanded beyond internet governance to other internet-related public policy issues like artificial intelligence and cybersecurity?

Speaker

Lea Kaspar

Explanation

This would demonstrate the broader applicability of multi-stakeholder approaches across different digital policy domains

What would a comparative study of different governments’ approaches to operationalizing multi-stakeholder processes in multilateral contexts reveal?

Speaker

Lea Kaspar

Explanation

This could identify best practices and common challenges across different national approaches to multi-stakeholder engagement

How can multi-stakeholder processes that aren’t formally labeled as such be made more visible and recognized?

Speaker

Carl Gahnberg

Explanation

Many effective multi-stakeholder collaborations exist but aren’t recognized as such, which limits their potential as models for replication

What are the common touchpoints between multi-stakeholder approaches in digital policy and similar collaborative approaches in other policy areas?

Speaker

Ian Sheldon

Explanation

Identifying these connections could help demonstrate that multi-stakeholder approaches aren’t foreign to other government processes and facilitate broader adoption

Summary

This panel discussion focused on achieving inclusive and sustainable digital transformation twenty years after the World Summit on the Information Society, examining how governments can ensure universal connectivity and effective e-governance. The session featured representatives from Costa Rica, Kuwait, Colombia, Uruguay, and a global AI ethics expert discussing their countries’ approaches to digital inclusion and the challenges they face.

Costa Rica’s Vice Minister highlighted their journey from 10% to 85% internet connectivity, emphasizing investments in rural and indigenous communities while acknowledging ongoing challenges with 29% of indigenous populations still lacking coverage. Kuwait’s representative showcased their citizen-centered approach through the Sahm application, which serves 2.8 million users and processes over 100 million transactions, demonstrating how co-creation with citizens can drive successful digital services. Colombia’s regulatory expert emphasized the importance of having a comprehensive national digital strategy with eight pillars, including connectivity, AI, and digital security, while implementing flexible regulatory frameworks that support community operators serving fewer than 5,000 users.

Uruguay’s representative drew a crucial distinction between digital inclusion and equity, noting that while 96-98% of citizens have internet access through nationwide fiber optic coverage, only 64% actively use e-government services. This highlighted the challenge of moving beyond mere connectivity to actual digital literacy and meaningful usage. The AI ethics expert from EY emphasized the need for robust assessment frameworks and transparent governance systems, noting that citizen confidence in government AI use remains low across 15 surveyed countries. The discussion concluded that successful digital transformation requires not just infrastructure investment but also comprehensive strategies addressing digital literacy, inclusive design, and transparent governance frameworks to ensure no citizen is left behind in the digital age.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Digital Infrastructure and Universal Connectivity**: Countries shared their progress and challenges in achieving universal internet access, with Costa Rica highlighting their journey from 10% to 85% connectivity, while still facing gaps in indigenous communities and low-income populations. The focus was on balancing public and private investment to reach underserved areas.

– **Inclusive and User-Centric Digital Services**: Kuwait presented their approach to designing government digital services that serve all citizens, emphasizing their “Sahm” platform that processes millions of transactions monthly. The discussion centered on making e-government services accessible across different demographics, languages, and digital literacy levels.

– **Regulatory Frameworks for Rural and Community Connectivity**: Colombia outlined their multi-stakeholder national digital strategy with eight pillars, highlighting special regulatory measures for community operators serving fewer than 5,000 users in rural areas, including reduced regulatory burdens and differentiated technical requirements.

– **Digital Inclusion vs. Digital Equity**: Uruguay distinguished between having access to digital infrastructure (inclusion) and actually using digital services effectively (equity), noting that while 96-98% have connectivity, only 60-64% actively use e-government services, emphasizing the need for digital literacy beyond just infrastructure.

– **AI Governance and Assessment in Government**: The discussion addressed the challenges governments face in implementing AI and digital technologies responsibly, with emphasis on the need for transparent assessment frameworks, third-party evaluations, and clear communication to build citizen trust in government AI systems.

**Overall Purpose:**

This panel discussion aimed to evaluate progress made 20 years after the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), examining how different countries are addressing digital transformation challenges while ensuring inclusive, equitable, and people-centered digital governance. The session focused on sharing best practices and identifying ongoing challenges in achieving universal digital access and effective e-government services.

**Overall Tone:**

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with panelists sharing both successes and ongoing challenges in a solution-oriented manner. The atmosphere was professional yet optimistic, with speakers building upon each other’s insights rather than debating. The tone remained consistently forward-looking, emphasizing shared learning and international cooperation, culminating in a collegial photo session that reinforced the collaborative spirit of the discussion.

Speakers

– **Yuhan Zheng**: Moderator/Host of the panel discussion

– **Hubert Vargas Picado**: Vice Minister of Science, Innovation, Technology and Telecommunications from Costa Rica

– **Laial Almansoury**: Chief of the Infrastructure, Operations, Communication and Information Technology Regulatory Authority, Minister of Communication Affairs at Kuwait

– **Claudia Ximena Bustamante Osorio**: Executive Director of the Commissioners of the CRC (Communications Regulation Commission) in Colombia

– **Daniel Mordecki**: Executive Director of AGESIC (Government Information Society and Knowledge Agency), Uruguay

– **Ansgar Koene**: Global AI Ethics and Regulatory Leader at EY

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Report: Achieving Inclusive and Sustainable Digital Transformation – Twenty Years After WSIS

## Executive Summary

This panel discussion, moderated by Yuhan Zheng, brought together government representatives from Costa Rica, Kuwait, Colombia, and Uruguay, alongside a global AI ethics expert, to examine progress in digital transformation twenty years after the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). The session focused on how governments can ensure universal connectivity and effective e-governance while addressing ongoing challenges of digital inclusion and equity.

The discussion highlighted both significant progress in digital infrastructure and persistent challenges in ensuring meaningful digital participation. Speakers shared their countries’ approaches to digital transformation, revealing common themes around citizen-centered design, regulatory innovation, and the need for targeted approaches to reach underserved communities.

## Key Participants and Their Contributions

### Costa Rica’s Investment in Digital Skills

Hubert Vargas Picado, Vice Minister of Science, Innovation, Technology and Telecommunications, explained Costa Rica’s unique strategic approach: “As a small country with no commodities like oil or minerals, we decided that the business of military deterrence was not ours 80 years ago. So, because of that, we abolished our army, and that has allowed us to invest a lot in education and more recently in digital skills, because we believe that our oil, specifically our talent.”

This strategic choice has enabled Costa Rica to advance from 10% to 85% internet connectivity and achieve 99% mobile coverage through public investment. However, significant challenges remain: 29% of indigenous communities are still uncovered and 42% of below-poverty populations cannot afford connectivity. Costa Rica has implemented a 5G tender that subsidizes spectrum costs by up to 90% while requiring operators to expand infrastructure to the 134 most unconnected districts.

### Kuwait’s Citizen-Centered Digital Services

Laial Almansoury, Chief of Infrastructure Operations at Kuwait’s Communication and Information Technology Regulatory Authority, emphasized Kuwait’s citizen-centered approach to digital transformation. She noted that “the most impactful digital solutions are built with the citizen, not merely for them,” highlighting the importance of co-creation in service design.

This philosophy has been implemented through Kuwait’s Sahm platform, which serves 2.8 million users and processes over 100 million transactions, offering more than 450 services from 40 government agencies. Kuwait has also launched initiatives like the “Born’s Journey” providing integrated digital services throughout a citizen’s lifecycle, and the Sahel business platform launched in 2022.

### Colombia’s Multi-Pillar Strategy and Regulatory Innovation

Claudia Ximena Bustamante Osorio, Executive Director of the Commissioners of Colombia’s Communications Regulation Commission, outlined Colombia’s national digital strategy built on eight pillars including connectivity, AI, digital transformation, capacity building, and digital security. The country emphasizes collaborative regulation and multi-stakeholder approaches.

Colombia has implemented innovative regulatory frameworks, including special measures for community operators serving fewer than 5,000 users in rural areas. These operators benefit from differentiated regulatory requirements designed to support digital inclusion in underserved communities. The country also employs regulatory sandboxes to foster innovation while maintaining appropriate oversight.

### Uruguay’s Digital Inclusion vs. Digital Equity Challenge

Daniel Mordecki, Executive Director of Uruguay’s Government Information Society and Knowledge Agency (AGESIC), presented a critical distinction between digital inclusion and digital equity. Despite Uruguay’s achievement of 96-98% digital inclusion through nationwide fiber optic coverage and zero-cost basic internet access, only 60-64% of citizens actively use e-government services.

Mordecki observed: “The problem is equity and equality of access when you look at index of usage of public administration and e-government services, those numbers reach about 60-ish, 64%. So between 30 and 35 people do have the devices, do have the access, do have the connection. They use it every day, but they don’t significantly use it in order to access e-services… That is not resolved with money nor infrastructure. We need to change their chip, their way they think.”

He illustrated this with examples of citizens who use smartphones for entertainment and GPS services but don’t utilize government digital services, highlighting that technical access doesn’t guarantee meaningful participation.

### Global AI Ethics and Citizen Trust

Ansgar Koene, Global AI Ethics and Regulatory Leader at EY, shared findings from research across 15 countries showing consistently low citizen confidence in government AI use. He emphasized the need for robust assessment frameworks and third-party evaluations for AI implementation in government services.

Koene stressed that “clear standards and well-communicated frameworks are essential for AI assessment in government services, with proper risk management and quality assurance systems to ensure technology works for all citizens.” He also highlighted the importance of making AI systems comprehensible to citizens, not just transparent.

## Common Themes Discussed

### Infrastructure as Foundation, Not Complete Solution

Multiple speakers acknowledged that while infrastructure investment is fundamental, it alone is insufficient for meaningful digital participation. Uruguay’s experience particularly illustrated this point, showing that high connectivity rates don’t automatically translate to high usage of digital services.

### Citizen-Centered Approaches

Both Kuwait and other speakers emphasized the importance of designing digital services with citizens rather than simply for them. This involves understanding citizen needs and involving them in the design process of digital services.

### Targeted Approaches for Underserved Communities

Costa Rica and Colombia both demonstrated the need for special measures to reach underserved populations. Costa Rica’s focus on indigenous communities and below-poverty groups, combined with Colombia’s differentiated regulatory measures for rural community operators, showed recognition that universal approaches may not address specific barriers faced by different communities.

## Challenges Identified

### Reaching Marginalized Populations

Despite progress, all countries continue to face challenges in reaching their most marginalized populations, whether due to geographic isolation, economic barriers, or other factors.

### Moving Beyond Access to Usage

Uruguay’s experience highlighted the challenge of ensuring that digital access translates into meaningful usage of government services. This involves addressing not just technical barriers but also behavioral and cultural factors.

### Building Trust in Government AI

The research presented by Koene revealed a significant trust gap between government AI implementation and citizen acceptance, suggesting the need for better communication and governance frameworks around AI use in public services.

## Conclusion

Twenty years after WSIS, this discussion revealed both significant achievements and ongoing challenges in digital transformation. While countries have made substantial progress in expanding digital infrastructure and services, ensuring meaningful digital participation for all citizens remains a complex challenge requiring approaches that go beyond technical solutions.

The distinction between digital inclusion and digital equity emerged as a key insight, while the emphasis on citizen-centered design and regulatory innovation provided examples of how governments are adapting their approaches to address these challenges. The session concluded with a photo opportunity, reflecting the collaborative spirit of international cooperation in addressing digital transformation challenges.

Yuhan Zheng: Thank you so much for giving the floor. And now, first, let’s welcome all the distinguished panellists on stage. Yuran? Great. So, we have all the speakers here with us today. And so, Excellency and distinguished delegates and all the digital innovators, 20 years ago, after the WSIS first invention of a people-centred digital future, we stand at an inflection point. The promise of click to governance is more than just connectivity. It requires design to transform the e-services that energise the equity. And also, today, we confront more issues linked with sustainability, AI, and a lot of geopolitical tensions. So, now, our leaders across the world gather here to solve this question together with us together. So, now, we have Excellency Vargas Picado, the Vice Minister of Science, Innovation, Technology and Telecommunications from Costa Rica. And welcome. And then, we have Ms Laial Almansoury, the Chief of the Infrastructure, Operations, Communication and Information Technology Regulatory Authority, the Minister of Communication Affairs at Kuwait. And now, we have from Colombia, Dr Bustamante Osorio, the Executive Directors of the Commissioners of the CRC in Colombia. And also, we have, you will agree, Mr Mordecki, the Executive Directors of AGESIC, the Government Information Society and Knowledge Agency. And also, we have from EY, Dr Koene, the Global EIS and Regulatory Leaders. So, welcome, all. Now, we would like to begin this session by starting with the question to Costa Rica. So, 20 years ago, the World Summit on the Information Society defined a set of action lines aimed at guiding international cooperation towards a more inclusive, equitable, and people-centered information society. In this context, and two decades later, what are the key challenges that Costa Rica still faces in ensuring the minimal and truly universal connectivity? Additionally, how has the country succeeded in striking a balance between public and private investment in the development of the digital infrastructure over the course of the process? Now, you have the floor.

Hubert Vargas Picado: Good morning, everybody. Costa Rica was particularly guided 20 years ago by the C2 action line. We have invested a lot in terms of infrastructure, not only in urban areas, that is quite natural because of market reasons, but investing specifically in indigenous populations, indigenous communities, and the rural areas. Because of geography, besides our small size, we have a lot of communities that are quite remote. As a small country with no commodities like oil or minerals, we decided that the business of military deterrence was not ours 80 years ago. So, because of that, we abolished our army, and that has allowed us to invest a lot in education and more recently in digital skills, because we believe that our oil, specifically our talent. So, guided by that approach, we have guided our policy, even like a state policy, to increase connectivity. To increase from 20 years ago, we had only 10% of our population connected to the internet. We currently have 85%. And in terms of mobile internet, we actually cover 99% of the population. And besides that good news, the challenges remain specifically in the 29% of indigenous communities that we actually don’t cover recently, and 42% of our below-poverty line that it is quite hard for them to actually pay for connectivity. So, we designed 5G tender recently that is specifically focused on increasing industrial use cases, but we subsidize the cost of the spectrum up to 90%, and we obligated the operators to increase one-third of the current infrastructure in the 134 most unconnected districts in our country, focusing on 5G with great downlink and uplink requirements in those communities that currently they basically only have 3G, or even not 3G at all. So, our focus is continuing developing skills, but also reaching the communities that, besides our recent investment, we are lacking to cover in the last two years. And because of that, we will have a change in two, four and six years, really good plan, and I’m excited to update this in at least two years.

Yuhan Zheng: Thank you so much for this very informative keynote, and also you mentioned one of the most important elements, indigenous, is also important in every realm, including AI, sustainability, and a lot. And also one more thing is that how you create the empowering environment for the young people, for the future generation, to really have the last, to reach the last mile. So now, my next questions would like to go to Kuwait. So, Ms Almansoury, how can governments ensure that the design and delivery of the digital public service are both inclusive and user-centric, especially in rapidly evolving digital ecosystem like your country?

Laial Almansoury: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. It’s an honor, first, to address this respected forum of the state of Kuwait. To answer this question on how to ensure that digital public services are both inclusive and user-centric, it’s not merely a technical one, it reflects our shared commitment to building fair and resilient societies for the future. In Kuwait, our digital transformation is guided by a clear and consistent principle, technology, that must serve everyone. We consider the delivery of inclusive and efficient e-service not only a matter of convenience, but a social responsibility, and a cornerstone of our International Development Agenda as set forth in Kuwait 2035. So to realize the vision, inclusivity is not an afterthought, it is a fundamental design. Our approach is rooted in a citizen-centered technology and methodology. We actively engage with our citizens to co-create the services they need. We believe the most impactful digital solutions are built with the citizen, not merely for them. So this means ensuring the accessibility for elderly and disabilities, supporting multiple languages and designing interfaces that are user-friendly across all level of digital proficiency. A prime example of this approach is our unified government application called Sahm, which launched in 2021 with 13 government entities offering around 123 services. Sahm has evolved into a thriving digital ecosystem. Today it serves over 2.8 million users, has processed more than 100 million transactions and provides over 450 services from 40 government agencies with an average of 4.5 million transactions per month. We continue to improve users’ experience. One example is the new Born’s Journey, the first integrated digital service that combines seven government procedures into one seamless process. Supporting Kuwait’s dynamic economy, we launched the Sahel business in 2022. So the platform, that’s why the platform as the WSIS are invaluable for us. They allow us to exchange insights, learn from international best practices and collaborate on shaping a global digital future. So thank you everyone.

Yuhan Zheng: Thank you so much, it’s very useful and to know the Sahel, it’s good to know that because currently the e-government, of course it’s a trend, but how to make sure that the user’s experience is also good, I think it’s a matter to all, we’re standing here across the different regions. So now I would like to dive deep a little bit further, not only the citizen but also the rural community. So the next questions will go to Columbia, so what do you consider to be the most relevant regulatory and cooperation element to accelerate inclusive and sustainable digitalization, exposing connectivity gaps in rural areas, leveraging those digital services and also improving the relationship between the government and citizens? Thank you.

Claudia Ximena Bustamante Osorio: Thank you, it’s an honor to be here. I will emphasize two main points. One is to have a national digital strategy, because this is a work for many different entities and it’s a multi-stakeholder approach. Our digital strategy in Columbia has eight pillars, connectivity, data analytics and interoperability, trust and digital security, capacity building, AI and emerging technologies, public sector digital transformation, digital economy or business development, and digital society. With these pillars in mind, all the different entities work to have the goals reached to close the connectivity gap and, of course, increase the digital services. When we talk about regulation, that is the second point, the CRC promotes a flexible, prospective and inclusive approach. We apply state-of-the-art methodologies and regulatory tools to have all the knowledge and the perspective for the evolving ecosystems. For instance, we use regulatory sandboxes, collaborative regulation and promote the digital emerging technologies. Our frameworks are people-centric and we have promoted, for instance, the digitalization of the user protection regime and developed an open data policy to support evidence-based decision making and foster research and innovation within the ICT sector. Also our regulatory framework has differentiated measures with focus in the rural areas and they are less connected because we know they have different economic and societal conditions than the rest of the country. For that reason, we try to reduce the burden for community operators and coordinate our work with the ICT ministry and the spectrum agency to have different technical and process specifications for them in order to help them to thrive. The community providers in Colombia are defined as those who have less than 5,000 users. For that reason, they need support. I think it’s very important also to have the multilateral and international cooperation in mind because these communities and, of course, the government agencies also need more capacity building and more technological tools to improve the kind of situations that they have. In the CRC, we also promote the internal change, the organizational adoption of emerging technologies to help more efficiency in our processes and to have these efficiencies translated to our services to the citizens.

Yuhan Zheng: Thank you so much. One of the most important things is about the digital transformation that you mentioned and how to make sure that accessibility is also guaranteed. Also, one of the most interesting things is the internal changes, like you say, within the organization and country. Now, I would like to direct my next question to Daniel Mordecki. Now, we talk a lot about accessibility, capacity building, and now we would like to stress more on the inclusion part. What are the challenges that you think of the service of digitalization in relation to inclusion really works? Thank you.

Daniel Mordecki: Okay. Voy a hablar en español. I will speak in Spanish, so I’ll give you time to get your headphones on. I believe that the question is aiming at that tension that there could be between inclusion and equity, which is not the same. There are different concepts when we look at them, and they require different approaches. In Uruguay, for example, digital inclusion pretty much is between 96% and 98%, and this This is not out of chance. We deployed an FO fiber optic network over 15 years ago. It is small in size. We are not talking about the capital or main cities. All areas, all the country, all the surface area is covered pretty much by fiber optic. Your basic connection to internet is zero. That provides people with enough bytes to get along and that provides inclusion by its nature. The problem is equity and equality of access when you look at index of usage of public administration and e-government services, those numbers reach about 60-ish, 64%. So between 30 and 35 people do have the devices, do have the access, do have the connection. They use it every day, but they don’t significantly use it in order to access e-services. I mean, an individual who nowadays cannot buy a ticket or cannot perform a given transaction or cannot use geopositioning GPS services or that cannot reserve in a hotel, it’s a citizen that we start leaving behind, unfortunately, and we need to change that as a society. The fact that you cannot access a reservation or geoposition, you do it. If you go to the entertainment world in Uruguay, many theaters and many functions are only through internet. So we as policymakers have this new challenge. We cannot leave those people behind. That is not resolved with money nor infrastructure. We need to change their chip, their way they think. And in order to do that, you need to provide the digital literacy. In order to do that, you need to allow that all citizens, men and women, in an equitarian way, use services. We definitely need to move away from 80-20 law and get equity and inclusion all the way down to the last citizen of Uruguay. Thank you so very much.

Yuhan Zheng: Thank you so much. And also, thank you for telling how electricity is not, you cannot just guarantee the electricity to people, but not many people can use the electricity for the internet. So it’s kind of like an equilibrium of all those decision makers and leaders that we need to make for the people to let them to really use the resources right to fulfill their own life. So thank you so much for this very, very fresh and unique perspective that bring us to think further step into everybody’s daily life. So after all the different nationals and real perspective, and we know there are some emerging trends that we need to capture as a foresight to look into the future and to advise on the future generation on how we ignite a digital future that we really desire. So now I come to my last but also a very important question to you, Dr. Kilney, because as a global AI ethic, so policy, you know, every day you are observing how different countries, their insights into those governance of the digital transformation. So what are the some key concerns that governments need to address in order to achieve a successful implementation of e-governance? Thank you.

Ansgar Koene: Thank you very much, and it’s a pleasure to be with you here today. EY of course is a global network of professional services firms and as such we try to support governments and private sector in their digital and AI transformations. Now for government especially, there is an added challenge because as we’ve already heard from the other speakers, government has the obligation and public sector services has the obligation to serve everyone in the country. It is important that the services will work for all citizens, not just for those that are most easy to access. This brings with it the extra challenge of making sure that you get the right kind of assessments, that you can really check that as you’re implementing a new technology from whatever provider it is, that you can successfully assess whether or not it will work in the context of your country, in the context of all of the people within your nation. Within EY, we’ve recently run a survey, an AI sentiment survey, across 15 different countries and unfortunately we’ve found that the confidence that citizens have in the use of AI by government is not that high. It should be improved and one way to do that is really to ensure that we have an ecosystem of good assessment providers around how these technologies work, preferably third-party assessments to identify, have good governance frameworks being put in place, is risk management being taken into account, is there a good quality management system in place. This does not have to be a regulatory regime, it can be, it depends on what works best for whatever jurisdiction we’re operating in, but it is important that it is based on clear standards, clear outlined and clearly communicated framework around what exactly is being assessed, what is being confirmed, because if assessments are being provided but the citizenry, the receivers of these reports do not understand how to interpret them, then this could lead to a misunderstanding while the governance process has been assessed, they may interpret it as being guarantees on the performance of the system or vice versa. So it is very important that policies within the country provide clear and well-communicated frameworks around how these systems are both being implemented and how good implementation is being assessed and guaranteed.

Yuhan Zheng: Thank you so much and for the work that you’ve done to clean and link all the dots together and for a more resilient digital future that we really want to drive and also the assessment you mentioned, it’s quite important, it’s just like a global stocktake in terms of the every national determined contribution to transform your own country’s perspective and also the landscape into the future stage. So and the most important thing in addition to inclusion and it’s also transparency and to create the ecosystem to really understand what everybody wants and what is really desirable but not palpable to just use the big data to predict a future that we want. So now I would like to give a round applause of all our panellists. Thank you so much for presenting today and yeah thank you and also for your participation. So now I would like to welcome all of our panellists to stand in the middle so that we can take a good photo together. Do you want us to stand or yeah great thank you so much. Thank you.

Agreement points

Infrastructure investment is fundamental but insufficient for meaningful digital participation

Speakers

– Daniel Mordecki
– Yuhan Zheng

Arguments

While Uruguay achieved high connectivity rates, only 60-64% of citizens actively use e-government services, highlighting that infrastructure access doesn’t guarantee meaningful digital participation and requires digital literacy initiatives

Successful digital inclusion requires balancing infrastructure provision with ensuring meaningful usage, moving beyond the ‘electricity analogy’ where access doesn’t guarantee effective utilization

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that providing digital infrastructure alone is not sufficient – there must be accompanying efforts to ensure citizens can meaningfully use and benefit from digital services through digital literacy and user empowerment.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Comprehensive national digital strategies with multi-stakeholder approaches are essential

Speakers

– Claudia Ximena Bustamante Osorio
– Laial Almansoury

Arguments

Colombia implements a national digital strategy with eight pillars including connectivity, AI, and digital transformation, using regulatory sandboxes and differentiated measures for rural areas and community operators

Kuwait’s digital transformation follows citizen-centered methodology with co-creation approach, resulting in the Sahm platform serving 2.8 million users with over 450 services from 40 government agencies

Summary

Both countries demonstrate the importance of having comprehensive, multi-faceted digital strategies that involve multiple stakeholders and government entities working together toward common digital transformation goals.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Special attention needed for underserved communities and rural areas

Speakers

– Hubert Vargas Picado
– Claudia Ximena Bustamante Osorio

Arguments

Costa Rica achieved 85% internet connectivity and 99% mobile coverage through strategic public investment, but still faces challenges with 29% of indigenous communities uncovered and 42% of below-poverty populations unable to afford connectivity

Colombia promotes flexible and inclusive regulation using state-of-the-art methodologies, with special focus on reducing regulatory burden for community operators serving less than 5,000 users

Summary

Both countries recognize that achieving universal digital inclusion requires targeted approaches for underserved communities, including indigenous populations, rural areas, and low-income groups, with differentiated regulatory and support measures.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Citizen-centered design and transparency are crucial for digital governance

Speakers

– Laial Almansoury
– Yuhan Zheng

Arguments

Kuwait’s digital transformation follows citizen-centered methodology with co-creation approach, resulting in the Sahm platform serving 2.8 million users with over 450 services from 40 government agencies

Transparency and ecosystem creation are essential for digital governance, requiring understanding of citizen needs rather than relying solely on big data predictions to shape desired futures

Summary

Both emphasize the importance of putting citizens at the center of digital service design, involving them in co-creation processes, and maintaining transparency in how digital governance decisions are made.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Similar viewpoints

Both countries demonstrate that strategic public investment in digital infrastructure can achieve high levels of connectivity, with both achieving over 85% coverage through comprehensive national approaches that prioritize universal access.

Speakers

– Hubert Vargas Picado
– Daniel Mordecki

Arguments

Costa Rica achieved 85% internet connectivity and 99% mobile coverage through strategic public investment, but still faces challenges with 29% of indigenous communities uncovered and 42% of below-poverty populations unable to afford connectivity

Uruguay deployed nationwide fiber optic coverage achieving 96-98% digital inclusion through zero-cost basic internet access, demonstrating that comprehensive infrastructure investment can achieve near-universal connectivity

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both emphasize the need for flexible, well-designed regulatory frameworks that use modern methodologies and clear standards to ensure technology serves all citizens effectively while maintaining appropriate oversight.

Speakers

– Claudia Ximena Bustamante Osorio
– Ansgar Koene

Arguments

Colombia promotes flexible and inclusive regulation using state-of-the-art methodologies, with special focus on reducing regulatory burden for community operators serving less than 5,000 users

Clear standards and well-communicated frameworks are essential for AI assessment in government services, with proper risk management and quality assurance systems to ensure technology works for all citizens

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Unexpected consensus

The gap between digital access and meaningful digital participation

Speakers

– Daniel Mordecki
– Yuhan Zheng

Arguments

While Uruguay achieved high connectivity rates, only 60-64% of citizens actively use e-government services, highlighting that infrastructure access doesn’t guarantee meaningful digital participation and requires digital literacy initiatives

Successful digital inclusion requires balancing infrastructure provision with ensuring meaningful usage, moving beyond the ‘electricity analogy’ where access doesn’t guarantee effective utilization

Explanation

It’s unexpected that a country like Uruguay, which achieved near-universal connectivity (96-98%), would still face significant challenges with only 60-64% of citizens using e-government services. This consensus highlights a critical insight that the digital divide is not just about access but about meaningful participation, which requires a fundamental shift in how we approach digital inclusion policies.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

The critical importance of trust and assessment frameworks for government AI implementation

Speakers

– Ansgar Koene
– Yuhan Zheng

Arguments

Governments need robust assessment frameworks and third-party evaluations for AI implementation, as citizen confidence in government AI use remains low across 15 countries surveyed

Transparency and ecosystem creation are essential for digital governance, requiring understanding of citizen needs rather than relying solely on big data predictions to shape desired futures

Explanation

The consensus on low citizen confidence in government AI use across 15 countries is unexpected given the rapid adoption of AI technologies by governments. This agreement reveals a significant trust gap that requires immediate attention through transparent governance frameworks and citizen-centered approaches rather than technology-first implementations.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on several key principles: the need for comprehensive national digital strategies, citizen-centered approaches to digital service design, special attention to underserved communities, and the recognition that infrastructure alone is insufficient for meaningful digital inclusion. There was also agreement on the importance of flexible regulatory frameworks and transparency in digital governance.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for digital policy. The agreement suggests a maturing understanding of digital transformation that goes beyond technical infrastructure to encompass social, regulatory, and governance dimensions. This consensus indicates that successful digital transformation requires holistic approaches that balance technological capabilities with human-centered design, regulatory innovation, and inclusive implementation strategies. The shared recognition of the access-versus-usage gap represents a critical evolution in digital policy thinking that could reshape how governments approach digital inclusion initiatives globally.

Different viewpoints

Infrastructure vs. Digital Literacy Priority

Speakers

– Hubert Vargas Picado
– Daniel Mordecki

Arguments

Costa Rica achieved 85% internet connectivity and 99% mobile coverage through strategic public investment, but still faces challenges with 29% of indigenous communities uncovered and 42% of below-poverty populations unable to afford connectivity

While Uruguay achieved high connectivity rates, only 60-64% of citizens actively use e-government services, highlighting that infrastructure access doesn’t guarantee meaningful digital participation and requires digital literacy initiatives

Summary

Costa Rica focuses primarily on expanding infrastructure coverage and affordability as the main challenge, while Uruguay demonstrates that even with near-universal coverage, the real challenge lies in digital literacy and meaningful usage of services.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Success Metrics for Digital Inclusion

Speakers

– Daniel Mordecki
– Hubert Vargas Picado

Arguments

Uruguay deployed nationwide fiber optic coverage achieving 96-98% digital inclusion through zero-cost basic internet access, demonstrating that comprehensive infrastructure investment can achieve near-universal connectivity

Costa Rica achieved 85% internet connectivity and 99% mobile coverage through strategic public investment, but still faces challenges with 29% of indigenous communities uncovered and 42% of below-poverty populations unable to afford connectivity

Explanation

Unexpectedly, Uruguay with higher connectivity rates (96-98%) reveals deeper usage problems, while Costa Rica with lower connectivity rates (85%) focuses on coverage expansion. This suggests different definitions of success and different stages of digital maturity between countries.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center around prioritization strategies for digital inclusion – whether to focus on infrastructure expansion versus digital literacy, and different approaches to citizen engagement and regulatory frameworks.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers generally align on goals of inclusive digital transformation but differ in their strategic approaches and priorities based on their countries’ specific contexts and development stages. These differences appear to be complementary rather than conflicting, suggesting different phases of digital maturity rather than fundamental philosophical disagreements.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both countries demonstrate that strategic public investment in digital infrastructure can achieve high levels of connectivity, with both achieving over 85% coverage through comprehensive national approaches that prioritize universal access.

Speakers

– Hubert Vargas Picado
– Daniel Mordecki

Arguments

Costa Rica achieved 85% internet connectivity and 99% mobile coverage through strategic public investment, but still faces challenges with 29% of indigenous communities uncovered and 42% of below-poverty populations unable to afford connectivity

Uruguay deployed nationwide fiber optic coverage achieving 96-98% digital inclusion through zero-cost basic internet access, demonstrating that comprehensive infrastructure investment can achieve near-universal connectivity

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both emphasize the need for flexible, well-designed regulatory frameworks that use modern methodologies and clear standards to ensure technology serves all citizens effectively while maintaining appropriate oversight.

Speakers

– Claudia Ximena Bustamante Osorio
– Ansgar Koene

Arguments

Colombia promotes flexible and inclusive regulation using state-of-the-art methodologies, with special focus on reducing regulatory burden for community operators serving less than 5,000 users

Clear standards and well-communicated frameworks are essential for AI assessment in government services, with proper risk management and quality assurance systems to ensure technology works for all citizens

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Key takeaways

Digital infrastructure investment alone is insufficient – countries need to address both connectivity and digital literacy to achieve meaningful digital inclusion

Successful digital transformation requires citizen-centered design approaches with co-creation methodologies rather than top-down implementation

Rural and indigenous communities require differentiated regulatory approaches and targeted support, including subsidized spectrum costs and reduced regulatory burdens for community operators

National digital strategies must be multi-stakeholder efforts with clear pillars covering connectivity, AI, security, capacity building, and digital transformation

There is a critical distinction between digital inclusion (access to technology) and digital equity (meaningful use of digital services) that requires different policy approaches

Government AI implementation faces low citizen confidence and requires robust third-party assessment frameworks with clear, well-communicated standards

Universal basic internet access (zero-cost connectivity) can achieve near-universal digital inclusion when combined with comprehensive fiber optic infrastructure

Resolutions and action items

Costa Rica committed to updating progress on their 5G tender and connectivity expansion in two years

Costa Rica will continue implementing their plan to cover the 134 most unconnected districts with 5G infrastructure over 2, 4, and 6-year timeframes

Kuwait will continue expanding their Sahm platform services and improving user experience through integrated digital services like the ‘Born’s Journey’

Colombia will continue promoting regulatory sandboxes and collaborative regulation for emerging technologies

Uruguay needs to focus on digital literacy initiatives to bridge the gap between connectivity (96-98%) and actual e-service usage (60-64%)

Unresolved issues

How to effectively reach and serve the remaining 29% of uncovered indigenous communities in Costa Rica and similar populations globally

How to make digital services affordable for below-poverty populations (42% in Costa Rica cannot afford connectivity)

How to improve citizen confidence in government AI systems across different countries and cultural contexts

How to ensure digital literacy programs effectively convert digital access into meaningful digital participation

How to balance rapid technological advancement with inclusive implementation that doesn’t leave vulnerable populations behind

How to establish standardized international frameworks for AI assessment and governance while respecting national sovereignty

Suggested compromises

Costa Rica’s approach of subsidizing spectrum costs up to 90% while requiring operators to expand infrastructure to underserved areas

Colombia’s differentiated regulatory measures that reduce burden for community operators serving less than 5,000 users while maintaining service standards

Uruguay’s model of providing zero-cost basic internet access while allowing paid premium services

Flexible regulatory frameworks that can adapt to emerging technologies while maintaining people-centric focus

Multi-stakeholder approaches that balance public investment with private sector capabilities

As a small country with no commodities like oil or minerals, we decided that the business of military deterrence was not ours 80 years ago. So, because of that, we abolished our army, and that has allowed us to invest a lot in education and more recently in digital skills, because we believe that our oil, specifically our talent.

Speaker

Hubert Vargas Picado

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it reframes national resource allocation and strategic priorities. By connecting Costa Rica’s unique decision to abolish its military with its digital transformation strategy, Picado presents a compelling alternative model for national development that prioritizes human capital over traditional security spending. The metaphor of ‘talent as oil’ is particularly powerful in illustrating how countries can leverage their human resources as their primary competitive advantage.

Impact

This comment established a foundational theme for the entire discussion about alternative pathways to digital development. It shifted the conversation from purely technical infrastructure discussions to broader questions of national strategy and resource allocation, influencing subsequent speakers to consider how their countries’ unique circumstances shape their digital transformation approaches.

We believe the most impactful digital solutions are built with the citizen, not merely for them.

Speaker

Laial Almansoury

Reason

This statement encapsulates a fundamental shift in governance philosophy from top-down service delivery to participatory co-creation. It challenges the traditional model of government service provision and introduces the concept of citizens as active partners in designing their own digital experiences rather than passive recipients.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from technical implementation details to philosophical questions about the relationship between government and citizens in the digital age. It introduced the concept of co-creation that influenced the moderator’s subsequent questions about user experience and accessibility, steering the conversation toward more human-centered approaches.

The problem is equity and equality of access when you look at index of usage of public administration and e-government services, those numbers reach about 60-ish, 64%. So between 30 and 35 people do have the devices, do have the access, do have the connection. They use it every day, but they don’t significantly use it in order to access e-services… That is not resolved with money nor infrastructure. We need to change their chip, their way they think.

Speaker

Daniel Mordecki

Reason

This is perhaps the most thought-provoking comment of the entire discussion because it challenges the fundamental assumption that digital inclusion equals digital infrastructure access. Mordecki introduces a crucial distinction between inclusion (having access) and equity (meaningful usage), revealing that technical solutions alone are insufficient. His observation that people use technology daily but avoid e-government services exposes a deeper behavioral and trust gap that infrastructure cannot solve.

Impact

This comment created a pivotal turning point in the discussion, shifting focus from infrastructure and technical solutions to behavioral change and digital literacy. The moderator immediately recognized its significance, using the electricity analogy to reinforce the point. This insight reframed the entire conversation’s conclusion, leading to deeper questions about citizen confidence and the need for comprehensive assessment frameworks rather than just technical implementations.

Unfortunately we’ve found that the confidence that citizens have in the use of AI by government is not that high. It should be improved and one way to do that is really to ensure that we have an ecosystem of good assessment providers around how these technologies work, preferably third-party assessments… if the citizenry, the receivers of these reports do not understand how to interpret them, then this could lead to a misunderstanding.

Speaker

Ansgar Koene

Reason

This comment introduces the critical issue of citizen trust in government AI systems and highlights the communication gap between technical assessments and public understanding. It’s insightful because it connects the technical governance of AI with the social acceptance necessary for successful implementation, revealing that transparency without comprehensibility can actually create more confusion.

Impact

This comment brought the discussion full circle by connecting the earlier themes of citizen-centric design and behavioral change with the practical challenges of implementing emerging technologies. It reinforced Mordecki’s point about the gap between access and meaningful usage, while providing a concrete framework for addressing trust through better assessment and communication practices.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed what could have been a routine technical discussion about digital infrastructure into a nuanced exploration of the human dimensions of digital transformation. Picado’s opening about Costa Rica’s unique strategic choices set an innovative tone that encouraged other speakers to think beyond conventional approaches. Almansoury’s emphasis on co-creation shifted the focus to participatory governance, while Mordecki’s distinction between inclusion and equity provided the discussion’s most significant conceptual breakthrough – revealing that the real challenge isn’t just connecting people to technology, but ensuring they can meaningfully engage with it. Koene’s closing observations about citizen trust and assessment frameworks tied these themes together, showing how technical governance must be coupled with public understanding. Together, these comments elevated the discussion from operational details to fundamental questions about the relationship between technology, government, and citizens, creating a more sophisticated understanding of what truly inclusive digital transformation requires.

How to create empowering environments for young people and future generations to reach the last mile in digital connectivity

Speaker

Yuhan Zheng

Explanation

This was mentioned as an important follow-up after discussing indigenous communities and connectivity gaps, recognizing the need to focus on youth empowerment in digital inclusion efforts

How to ensure good user experience in e-government services across different regions

Speaker

Yuhan Zheng

Explanation

This was identified as a common challenge that all regions represented need to address, following Kuwait’s presentation on their Sahel platform

How to move citizens from having digital access to actually using e-government services effectively

Speaker

Daniel Mordecki

Explanation

Uruguay identified a gap where 96-98% have digital inclusion but only 60-64% use e-government services, highlighting the difference between access and meaningful usage

How to provide digital literacy to change citizens’ mindset about using digital services

Speaker

Daniel Mordecki

Explanation

This was identified as a key challenge that cannot be resolved with money or infrastructure alone, requiring a fundamental shift in how people think about and engage with digital services

How to improve citizen confidence in government use of AI technologies

Speaker

Ansgar Koene

Explanation

EY’s survey across 15 countries found low citizen confidence in government AI use, indicating a need for better governance frameworks and communication strategies

How to develop better assessment frameworks for AI implementation in government services

Speaker

Ansgar Koene

Explanation

There’s a need for clear, well-communicated frameworks for assessing AI systems in government, including third-party assessments and quality management systems

How to ensure AI and digital services work for all citizens, not just those easiest to access

Speaker

Ansgar Koene

Explanation

Government services have the obligation to serve everyone, requiring special attention to ensure new technologies work across all demographic groups and contexts

Summary

This discussion focused on the WSIS Action Line C5 session addressing cybersecurity within ongoing UN intergovernmental processes, featuring experts from various UN agencies and Microsoft. The panel examined recent developments in multilateral cybersecurity frameworks and their implementation challenges. Glen Prichard from UNODC highlighted the successful adoption of the UN Convention Against Cybercrime after three years of negotiations involving 155 member states, emphasizing its significance as a rare example of global consensus in current geopolitical tensions. The convention will be signed in Hanoi, Vietnam in October 2024, marking a transition from negotiation to operationalization.

Melanie Regimbal from UNODA discussed the Open-Ended Working Group on ICT security, which was concluding its five-year process to establish a permanent mechanism for addressing cybersecurity issues. Key achievements included creating a global intergovernmental points of contact directory with over 120 participating states, establishing eight ICT security confidence-building measures, and facilitating dialogue on emerging threats. Motiehi Makumane from UNIDIR reflected on the evolution from voluntary norms to concrete implementation mechanisms, noting how non-binding standards have become integrated into national cybersecurity strategies and UN processes.

Kaja Ciglic from Microsoft presented a more sobering perspective on the threat landscape, citing 600 million daily identity attacks and increasing convergence between nation-state actors and cybercriminals. The discussion emphasized the need for enhanced multi-stakeholder engagement, capacity building that addresses varying national capabilities, and prevention through secure-by-design approaches. Participants stressed the importance of continuous dialogue and inclusive processes to bridge gaps between state-led negotiations and technical community perspectives in addressing rapidly evolving cyber threats.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **UN Cybercrime Convention Achievement**: UNODC successfully concluded a three-year negotiation process involving 155 member states to adopt the UN Convention Against Cybercrime, representing a significant multilateral achievement despite current geopolitical tensions. The convention will be signed in Hanoi, Vietnam in October 2024.

– **Open-Ended Working Group on ICT Security**: UNODA’s five-year process is concluding with the establishment of a permanent mechanism for cybersecurity governance, featuring key achievements including a global intergovernmental points of contact directory with 120+ participating states and eight confidence-building measures.

– **Evolution from Voluntary Norms to Concrete Mechanisms**: The discussion highlighted a significant shift in international cybersecurity governance from voluntary, non-binding norms to more concrete, actionable mechanisms and accountability measures, with states increasingly incorporating these standards into national cybersecurity strategies.

– **Escalating Cyber Threat Landscape**: Microsoft reported alarming statistics including 600 million daily identity attacks and increasing convergence between nation-state actors and cybercriminals, emphasizing that the threat landscape is evolving faster than multilateral agreements can address.

– **Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Capacity Building**: Participants emphasized the critical need for inclusive stakeholder participation, targeted capacity building that addresses different national maturity levels, and the importance of starting cybersecurity education at the student level while implementing secure-by-design principles.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to review progress in UN-led intergovernmental cybersecurity processes, assess how the WSIS Action Line C5 (building confidence and security) can support these efforts, and identify opportunities for different stakeholders to contribute to global cybersecurity governance as the international community moves toward more concrete implementation mechanisms.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a cautiously optimistic yet realistic tone throughout. Participants celebrated significant multilateral achievements while acknowledging the substantial challenges ahead. The tone was professional and collaborative, with speakers showing mutual respect for each other’s work. There was an underlying sense of urgency about the rapidly evolving threat landscape, balanced by appreciation for the incremental but meaningful progress being made in international cooperation. The conversation remained constructive and forward-looking, focusing on practical next steps rather than dwelling on obstacles.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Sadhvi Saran** – Moderator/Host from ITU (International Telecommunication Union)

– **Glen Prichard** – Chief of the cybercrime and anti-money laundering section at UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime), based in Vienna

– **Melanie Regimbal** – Chief of the UN ODA office in Geneva (UN Office for Disarmament Affairs)

– **Moliehi Makumane** – Researcher with UNIDIR (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research)

– **Kaja Ciglic** – Senior Director of Digital Peace at Microsoft

– **Wout de Natris** – Representative from the board of the dynamic coalition of the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) on internet standard security and safety

– **Participant** – Professor in cyber security (name given as Nabi during the session)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Participant** – Online participant (name mentioned as Kunle during the session)

# Summary: WSIS Action Line C5 Session on Cybersecurity within UN Intergovernmental Processes

## Introduction and Session Overview

This session, moderated by Sadhvi Saran from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), examined cybersecurity developments within UN intergovernmental processes under WSIS Action Line C5. The discussion brought together representatives from UN agencies, private sector, and civil society to discuss recent progress in multilateral cybersecurity frameworks.

The panel included Glen Prichard from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Melanie Regimbal from the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), Moliehi Makumane from the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), Kaja Ciglic, Senior Director of Digital Peace at Microsoft, and Wout de Natris representing the board and dynamic coalition of the IGF on internet standard security and safety. Additional contributions came from Professor Nabi and online participant Kunle.

## UN Convention Against Cybercrime: Major Achievement

Glen Prichard presented the successful conclusion of the UN Convention Against Cybercrime after intensive negotiations. As he emphasized: “The fact that we could come together and have member states agree on a common framework to combat and prevent cybercrime shows the importance of this thing, because there’s not many things that the world are agreeing on at the moment.”

The convention involved 155 member states and required “over 421 hours of active negotiations over three years.” Prichard noted the extensive stakeholder participation throughout the process, with input from civil society, private sector, and technical communities. The convention includes strong preventative measures and explicitly calls for cooperation between states, private sector, and civil society organizations.

The signing ceremony is scheduled for October 25-26, 2024, in Hanoi, Vietnam. Following the signing, UNODC will focus on supporting countries with ratification processes and harmonization of legal frameworks.

## Open-Ended Working Group on ICT Security Progress

Melanie Regimbal detailed the progress of the Open-Ended Working Group on ICT security, which has been operating for five years and is concluding its mandate. She noted they were “on the penultimate day negotiating the final report” in New York during the session.

The working group has achieved consensus through unanimous agreement, producing three annual reports approved by all participating member states. Key achievements include establishing a global intergovernmental points of contact directory with over 120 participating states, featuring both “diplomatic and technical” designations for incident reporting and communication.

The group has also agreed on eight global ICT security confidence-building measures, with particular focus on critical infrastructure protection and public-private cooperation. As Regimbal noted, the approach emphasizes that “responsible behaviour is always built on trust and confidence.”

## Evolution of Cybersecurity Norms Implementation

Moliehi Makumane highlighted the shift from voluntary norms to more concrete implementation mechanisms. She explained that while “the norms are voluntary and non-binding, a lot of time and effort has gone into raising awareness about what the norms are,” these have become “reasonable standards of expectations for behaviour of member states in cyberspace.”

This evolution includes the development of practical tools such as self-assessment mechanisms and checklists that help states evaluate their readiness for norm implementation. The focus has moved from establishing principles to providing concrete guidance on how states can demonstrate commitment through policy adoption and practical measures.

## Private Sector Perspective on Current Threats

Kaja Ciglic provided a sobering assessment of the current threat landscape, noting that Microsoft observes “close to 600 million identity, just identity attacks per day” and tracks “over 80 trillion signals from across our network again on a daily basis, which is not something that any human could handle.”

She highlighted a concerning trend: “we are seeing increasing convergence between nation state actors and cyber criminals… they’re either tolerating to try to be charitable to a lot of them, and violating the norm of due diligence, cybercrime operators acting outside from their country, attacking other countries, or sometimes actively participating through their cybersecurity apparatus.”

Regarding AI in cybersecurity, Ciglic noted that “AI being used more for defensive purposes while attackers use it primarily as productivity tool rather than for innovative attacks.”

## Challenges in Multi-Stakeholder Engagement

Despite emphasis on multi-stakeholder approaches, significant barriers persist. Ciglic revealed that Microsoft faces access restrictions: “blocked by countries every single time” when applying to participate in certain processes. This creates tension between the need for private sector expertise and political considerations that sometimes prevent meaningful participation.

Regimbal acknowledged the need for “stronger modalities to ensure diverse stakeholder participation in cybersecurity governance mechanisms,” recognizing that current approaches may be insufficient for meaningful engagement from all relevant actors.

## Capacity Building and Development Needs

The discussion revealed consensus on tailored capacity building approaches. Makumane emphasized that “capacity building must be tailored and demand-driven, addressing varying national maturity levels and rapidly evolving threat landscapes.”

Online participant Kunle raised concerns about ensuring “advanced, developing, and least developed countries can progress at similar pace through cooperation.” Prichard responded that the convention “aims to establish common standards globally to eliminate safe havens for cybercriminals and bring all countries to same level.”

## Prevention Versus Mitigation Debate

Wout de Natris introduced a critical perspective, arguing that discussions focus too heavily on “mitigation and not about prevention.” He advocated for “the implementation of long existing security related internet standards into products secure by design.”

This intervention highlighted the tension between reactive approaches that respond to incidents and proactive approaches that prevent vulnerabilities from being introduced initially. De Natris offered assistance from the dynamic coalition with capacity building on secure-by-design implementation.

## Education and Structural Challenges

Ciglic identified fundamental gaps in cybersecurity education, noting that “if you look at university curriculums around the world… the majority of leading universities with pretty much anywhere around the world do not have cybersecurity as a compulsory part of IT curriculums.”

Professor Nabi emphasized starting cybersecurity education early, mentioning his work on creating “unprofitable curriculum” (likely non-profit curriculum) for teaching safe internet and AI usage to students.

## Pace of Progress Versus Threat Evolution

A notable tension emerged between diplomatic optimism and private sector concerns. Ciglic stated: “I think for us, I think we’re a little bit less optimistic than sort of some of the discussions here… oftentimes the progress is very incremental in the desire to have consensus and the threat landscape is getting worse day by day.”

This highlighted the challenge of balancing consensus-building in international processes with the urgency of rapidly evolving cyber threats that require immediate responses.

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated both significant progress in international cybersecurity cooperation and ongoing challenges. The successful conclusion of the UN Cybercrime Convention and progress of the Open-Ended Working Group show that multilateral cooperation is possible despite geopolitical tensions.

However, key challenges remain, including bridging the gap between the pace of international cooperation and rapidly evolving threats, ensuring meaningful multi-stakeholder participation, and balancing reactive mitigation with proactive prevention approaches. The discussion emphasized the continued need for tailored capacity building, improved cybersecurity education, and more effective mechanisms for inclusive global cybersecurity governance.

Sadhvi concluded by mentioning the UN interagency working group on AI and briefly referencing the Digital Emblem Project, indicating ongoing efforts to address emerging technologies within existing cybersecurity frameworks.

Sadhvi Saran: and Mr. Glen Prichard, Mr. Glen Prichard, Ms. Amy Hogan-Burney, Ms. Melanie Regimbal, Ms. Amy Hogan-Burney, Ms. Melanie Regimbal, Ms. Melanie Regimbal, Ms. Melanie Regimbal, Okay, good morning, everyone. Recording in progress! Welcome to the WSIS Action Line C5 session. Thank you very much for being here. We know it’s day four of two very hectic events, and there’s been a lot going on, but hopefully you’ve enjoyed your time here at ICANN. at the WSIS Forum and AI for Good so far. So today we’re going to be focusing a little bit more on the ongoing intergovernmental processes on cybersecurity within the UN. And of course, getting different perspectives on it from our very distinguished panel of experts. I don’t know how many of you are already familiar with the WSIS framework or with the action line, but this particular one on building confidence and security was established as part of the Geneva Plan of Action in 2003 to address growing global concerns regarding the confidence and security of tech with a focus on aspects that were likely to undermine trust, privacy, and security and safety online over the past couple of decades since then. And as we now look forward to the WSIS plus 20 review in December this year, C5 has evolved in scope and importance, keeping pace of course, with the evolving cyber threats, advancements in technology, which have only made the digital ecosystem more complex. And of course, cross-border and transnational in nature, and increasingly intersecting with other issues of peace development and human rights. And so what we have been saying at the ITU, which as many of you may know is the International Telecommunication Union and the UN Specialized Agency for Digital Technologies, as well as the facilitator for Action Line C5, addressing the challenges that we are now facing that requires unified multilateral and multi-stakeholder efforts. We need to have more enhanced collaboration. of course, at the global level, but also the national, regional, subnational levels, with the focus on seeing how we can develop agile, adaptive frameworks, as well as trustworthy technical standards that can help combine government requirements with industry wishes. So with that, you know, let me introduce our panel for today. They have all in one way or another been involved with the intergovernmental processes that have been going on, leading them, coordinating them, or contributing to them. And we will spend some time today, you know, not just reflecting on what’s been going on and how we can all contribute to it, but perhaps a little bit as well on how the WSIS Action Line can support and complement these efforts and what are the avenues and opportunities for different stakeholders to participate and support this work. So with that, let me first introduce the panelists, and then we get into our questions for the day. So we have Mr. Glen Prichard, we’re all scattered around the room to make it more interactive. But we have Mr. Glen Prichard, who is the chief of the cybercrime and anti-money laundering section at UNODC, which is the Office of Drugs and Crime based in Vienna. Thank you, Glen, for joining us. We have Ms. Melanie Rajimbal, I hope I’m saying that correctly, who is chief of the UN ODA office in Geneva, which is the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs. Thank you very much, Melanie, for being here. We have Ms. Motiehi Makumani, who is a researcher with UNODO. Thank you, Motiehi. And we have Ms. Kaya Csiklik, is that correct? Sorry. Who is the senior director of digital peace at Microsoft and has… flown here literally overnight to be here with us today. Thank you very much, Kaya. So perhaps we begin then with the first question. And we start with Glen. What are some of the key updates from the work that, you know, UNODC has been doing on the cybercrime convention? And if you’d like to share some of the main achievements and challenges in that process, and then what we’re now looking

Glen Prichard: forward to next, please. Thank you, Sadhvi Saran. And thank you for the invitation to be here on the panel today. Yes, the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime have been the secretariat of a process that has evolved and eventuated in the adoption of the UN Convention Against Cybercrime. It has a strong focus on how to combat cybercrime and how to create, you know, harmonise legal frameworks around the world. But it also has strong preventative measures, which I’ll talk about a little bit later if I have a chance, because I think that’s really the focus of most of the group here in terms of how do we create that trust in cyberspace. The process itself definitely had some challenges, and it’s really a really big achievement for multilateralism in this day and age. And if we look at the geopolitical actions that are across the world at the moment and all the disparities that are happening, the fact that we could come together and have member states agree on a common framework to combat and prevent cybercrime shows the importance of this thing, because there’s not many things that the world are agreeing on at the moment, and the fact that they all come together and agreed on that. I just want to talk about some, it took, the process itself took over three years, and it took over 421 hours of active negotiations over those three years. It involved 155 member states and 21 UN entities, 139 civil society groups, academia, private sector. It was a very inclusive process and that really added to the power of the result of the outcome. If I talk about some of the complexities and some of the challenges that got there, you only have to look at the name of the convention to understand how hard it was. And this was the name that we ended up with. The United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime, semicolon, lots of argument over whether it was a colon or a semicolon, means of information and communication technology systems and for the sharing of evidence in electronic form of serious crimes. That’s the full title. We prefer to call it the UN Convention Against Cybercrime. It really is, as I said, a big milestone and heralds a new beginning, we hope. But now we need to operationalise it. And the first step in that is the signing ceremony that’s going to happen in Hanoi, Vietnam on the 25th and 26th of October. The registration for that will soon open on their webpage that’s been created for this convention. And we welcome participation from all stakeholders. Going forward after that, UNODC has put together a methodology in which will support countries to ratify the convention. There’s a large disparity of legal mechanisms and frameworks nationally that need to be addressed in terms so we can harmonise approaches in relation to combating. And we also want to set about promoting the preventative strategies that are involved in it. I think I’ve gone past my four minutes, but I’ll pause there.

Sadhvi Saran: Thank you. Thank you very much, Glenn. And indeed, we’ve been following very closely. We know exactly how complicated it has been to get to this point, but many congratulations to you again. It is a big milestone and a big achievement that we’re now discussing next steps in operationalising. And we’ll come back in the next round to understand a little bit more on engagement for different stakeholders. But with that, we move to you, Melanie, would you like to give us a little bit of an update on the work that’s been happening with the Open-Ended Working

Melanie Regimbal: Group? Thank you, Swadvi. It’s a pleasure to be here with you this morning and the timing of this event is actually quite auspicious. We are in New York, the Open-Ended Working Group on security of and in the use of information and communication technologies, which was created The IPCC, which was set in 2020 through Resolution 75-240, is on its penultimate day negotiating the final report, which, in principle, if all goes well, will establish a future and permanent mechanism to address these ICT cybersecurity issues. So it would be a mechanism that would, of course, be complementary to the other conventions and other efforts of the United Nations. This open-ended working group operates by consensus, so I have great sympathy for the large and long titles and the semicolon exercises, because this is something that we have gone through also. But over the course of the five years, and although we do not yet have a final outcome that will be reserved for tomorrow, but I understand from our colleagues in New York that the second draft of the report has now been submitted by the chair. This is a working group that has been chaired by Singapore, and so far the three annual reports that have led up to this process have been approved by consensus. And echoing what Glenn has said, anything that gets agreed by consensus in this organization is actually a huge success in the sense that it showcases the importance that this thematic has, but also the importance and the consensus that is being built over these issues. So this, I think, is a key achievement of the process so far. Of course, the big achievement will be if we are able to reach agreement tomorrow and finally establish this permanent mechanism. So maybe if I could just step back before we celebrate in an anticipatory manner for tomorrow and highlight three achievements that I think are particularly interesting for the C5 action lines, in particular Action H and J, so that those that deal with promotion of cooperation, interest in countries and nominating focal points, and interest in in keeping these mechanisms going. So the three achievements that we’ve had in the group and again, milestones that are important that we celebrate and in the context of the geopolitical tensions around the world, each of these milestones are quite significant, even if a standalone face value may seem quite minor. So in July, 2022, the states agreed to establish a global intergovernmental points of contact directory, which is really significant in the sense that we now have the ability to facilitate communication between states and be able to report with greater ease any ICT incident. And what’s interesting about this point of contact is that we have agreed to designate points of contracts from both a diplomatic and a technical standpoint, which also facilitates and deepens the conversation. Since its creation or its launch in May, 2024, so it was first initiated in July, 22, eventually launched in May, 2024, we now have more than 120 states that are participating in this directory and have provided nominations. We, as the Office for Disarmament Affairs, serve as the manager of this directory, and we’ve taken a lot of steps to support states’ participation, including a point of contact 101 online tutorial and series of tailored e-learning modules. And we’ve also concluded simulation exercises for these points of contacts in March, 2025. All of this is available on the website, and you can have a little bit more information on what the simulation exercise was about. The second milestone that has been reached in this open-ended working group was we agreed to eight global ICT security confidence-building measures, which is one of the pillars of the working group. and I will not go through all eight to spare you, but I would like to highlight three in particular. One of them has been the exchange of information and best practices on the protection of critical infrastructures and critical information infrastructure through capacity building, the strengthening of public-private cooperation in the area of ICT, which I think is one of the key standout issues that we have in this forum to understand that the stakeholders are shifting and that we need to have these public-private cooperations. And then the third is the promotion of information exchange, including national strategies, policies and program, legislations and best practices. These measures are important to foster not only transparency and predictability, but also to encourage cooperations and confidence building measures. And the third area of success that we’ve had with this open-ended working group that I’d like to highlight is that the substantive sessions of the group were used to be able to unpack existing and potential threats emanating from state use of ICTs and with a view to try to reach a common understanding, which of course is fundamental to being able to establish a permanent mechanism as it would go. The topics that were discussed went from anything from development of capabilities for military purposes and their use in current conflicts to the impacts on critical infrastructures and the protection of civilians, which is one of the key priorities that we have, and the proliferation of threat actors and convergence with other types of emerging technologies, such as AI and quantums. Of course, the working group over a period of four years has also experienced some challenges, and one of those challenges has been to ensure the broad participation of all stakeholders in this process, and that has been slightly challenging, both because of the heavy burden that most delegates already have and the numerous mandates and processes that are going on, and of course, the financial burdens both to the organizations and to the delegates themselves. So, one of the challenges One of the responses that we’ve had through generous voluntary funding has been the ability to promote sponsorship programs to facilitate the participation in this open-ended working group. And here I’d like to highlight that the sponsorship program focused particularly on the sponsorship of women and female delegates, which has increased our participation and made it much more gender balanced in terms of perspectives that were brought to the forefront. We also offered hybrid options for the informal meetings, thus lessening the burden and our environmental impact. But the main issue is that, of course, as in all of these processes, there has been divergence of views among states, but we are quite happy that everybody stuck to the process and were invested in the long haul and participated in these four years of exchanges. This is, to us, the most important thing is to ensure dialogue, ongoing dialogues, so that we can understand and highlight what could be potential red lines and to try to find solutions through these intergovernmental processes. And so we are quite confident that once a report is adopted, fingers crossed, tomorrow, that we will be able to establish a permanent mechanism that will be tailor-made to the priorities that have been established by this group. And so I think I’ll leave it at that for the time being. Thank you, Sanjeev.

Sadhvi Saran: Thank you, Melanie. And congratulations. This is also the conclusion of a five-year process, but yes, all the best for tomorrow. Fingers and toes crossed. I’m sure it’ll go well at this point, but, you know, once again, ITU’s been participating very actively and particularly on the points of contact directory. I know how much work it’s been to set that up and get that going, and so wishing you all the best for what comes tomorrow. Okay. With that, let’s move to Moti Ehi from the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, UNIDIR. So of course, you know, UNIDIR has been very involved in facilitating dialogue around norms and responsible state behavior in cyberspace. You’ve been following all of these processes very closely as well. What are your reflections on the shift from what we’ve seen before, which is agreements on a more voluntary, normative, high-level principles basis to more concrete mechanisms, such as now, you know, what we’ve just heard from Glenn and Melanie?

Moliehi Makumane: Thanks, Satvi, for inviting UNIDIR to this discussion, and like UNODA, UNIDIR has been able to provide technical expertise to the open-ended working group as well as the preceding six groups of governmental experts. So we’ve got quite a significant amount of experience and can now rightfully, in hindsight, look at the evolution and look forward. So what UNIDIR has been doing as a research institute, we’ve… supported the different GGEs and open-ended working groups with research on national implementation of the norms or how member states can translate the entire framework of responsible state behavior into national commitments. And because the norms are voluntary and non-binding, a lot of time and effort has gone into raising awareness about what the norms are. And I think at the end of the five-year process, member states and stakeholders can equally agree that the norms, though non-binding and voluntary, are reasonable standards of expectations for behavior of member states in cyberspace. And rightfully, like you say, there is a shift towards implementation and accountability, and that was also largely driven by the chair as well in pushing for practical concrete deliverables to come out of this process so that it would not just be another five-year talk shop. And one of them is the Survey of National Implementation, which was adopted in the 2019-2021 OEWG, which UNIDIR hosts. And on that National Survey of Implementation, states can self-assess on their readiness to implement the norms. And some of the readiness indicators include, does a state have a national interpretation of a norm, say, on the norm for cooperation for prosecuting criminal and terrorist use of ICT or even for the integrity of supply chain? Does the state have a national interpretation of that norm? But also, does the state have a POC focal point in case of malicious ICT incidents with a cross-border element? And also, what are the standard operating procedures for international cooperation? So states can go and self-assess to then build their capacities. Also, now, as this open-ended working group concludes one of the key deliverables that we’re hoping to get out of it. It is further discussion on another voluntary checklist for norms, which will then also help states to then again assess their readiness at the national level on whether they’ve got the necessary mechanisms to implement the norms. And then the other issue alongside implementation has been accountability, like you’ve said. And a lot of states, both in this process and the preceding processes, because it’s voluntary, accountability hasn’t necessarily been a big point. But what we’ve seen is member states are incorporating the norms in the national cybersecurity strategies. And so that is one way in which they are demonstrating their commitment towards the norms and against that then can be held accountable to a certain level of standard. But we also see, because there are in the norms themselves expectations of behavior on private sector and the broader multistakeholder community, that by states adopting these norms in the national architecture, they are also having different conversations with the multistakeholder community in terms of the implementation of the norms. I think to conclude, one of the big things has been how the process has also mainstreamed responsible state behavior across the UN. So we’ve had a lot of Security Council meetings also being convened on elements of the issues that were being discussed in the open-ended working group. And so again, the norms, though non-binding and voluntary, have really solidified themselves as good standards of behavior. And because they also run the full gambit from protection of critical infrastructure to supply chain to responsible vulnerabilities, disclosure and human rights, they’ve also been mainstreamed in a lot of other entities. And so that’s the big takeaway, I think, that we can get in UNIDIR is providing capacity building as well to support member states to then also understand what these norms mean for their national legislation, not just on norms, but also on the other elements of the framework, international law, and CBMs. Thanks, Sarfi.

Sadhvi Saran: Thank you. Thank you. That was a good overview of what’s been happening. And in fact, because we’re here on the sidelines also of AI for Good, a lot of the conversations around AI governance are trying to draw parallels with what has been happening in the cybersecurity space in terms of norms development and respecting, even though non-binding. you know, constituting in certain ways the way that nations are now practicing regulation and policy around that. So with that, I think it’s time to ask Akhaya from Microsoft, you know, from the private sector perspective, what do you see as some of the most urgent risks that, you know, are emerging from the accelerating digital transformation today in light of some of the conversations you’ve heard

Kaja Ciglic: already? Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. And thank you for having us. I think the, it’s, I think for us, I think we’re a little bit less optimistic than sort of some of the discussions here. I think the, well, obviously in the broader geopolitical environment, it’s important that progress is made, but oftentimes the progress is very incremental in the desire to have consensus and the threat landscape is getting worse day by day. You know, for us, the things that we’ve observed over the past year in particular have been the, I feel like not surprising, continued increase in ransomware operations across the world. I think in connection with that to an extent, but also separate increasing, and also really relevant for the UN discussions here, increasing convergence between nation state actors and cyber criminals. I think much more frequently those groups are working together, which, you know, for all the commitments that states are making in terms of the cyber crime convention or the open-ended working group, they’re either tolerating to try to be charitable to a lot of them, and It’s sort of in our view, violating the norm of due diligence, cybercrime operators acting outside from their country, attacking other countries, or sometimes actively participating through their cybersecurity apparatus. We continue to see a lot of, you know, hybrid war. I feel we all obviously follow the news. I think the state of the world is quite out of balance probably, you know, and whether you look at the Middle East, whether you look at Ukraine, Africa regions, I feel we see conflict in the real world, but we see that reflected in the online world as well. Whether you talk about traditional just cyberattacks against critical infrastructure, whether you look at espionage or pre-positioning attacks, or whether you look at sort of foreign influence operations. And then the other thing I would say is because of the sort of the scale of digital transformation, as you mentioned, we see just the numbers of attacks we see just on Microsoft systems are sort of not something that any human could handle, right? We see close to 600 million identity, just identity attacks per day. We, you know, we track over, I feel like 80 trillion signals from across our network again on a daily basis, which is not, you know, we have to, we use obviously AI to help with that. And so that’s the other, you know, also in the context of the conference, I think what we’re seeing, and that’s a positive story in reality, is we’re seeing a lot more use of AI for defense. The, you know, to search for vulnerabilities, to help. empower to deal with some of the scale and to also help empower with recommendations, with suggestions, the cyber defender community. On the other hand, obviously, we are seeing the attackers also start to use AI, but not consistently, not at scale. Yet, I feel a lot we have seen over the past year, except a few outlier exceptions, have been much more, they use it as a productivity tool, a little bit the way we use it if you use any of the AI tools available to help draft better phishing emails, to help find and collect email addresses, things like that. But it’s not driving innovative attacks per se, which was a fear, I think, earlier on. I think I’ll leave it there. I think we’re going to run out of time. But I’m obviously happy to answer another round of questions.

Sadhvi Saran: Thanks. Thanks. I mean, those are staggering numbers. We’ve also been engaging with the human rights community a little bit at ITU as well through RightsCon. It’s, I think, an important and ongoing conversation in terms of what we can do to really support that work as well. Okay, so we’re moving to the second round. We are running a little behind time. So it would be nice to have a few minutes at the end in case there’s any questions from the audience. But perhaps this can be kind of a final word from all of you. We’ll begin with you, Melanie. Do you have any ideas for how WSIS stakeholders can contribute to and benefit from the processes that UNODA is leading, given that it can be a pretty complex landscape sometimes, and also the motivating factor behind this session? So please, go ahead. Thank you.

Melanie Regimbal: Just to very quickly summarize, I think where the WIFS can help us in the open-ended working group is to support the modalities of the stakeholder engagements. I think that that will be the most important to ensure that we have a wide variety of stakeholders participating in whatever mechanism is finally established. That will be the key thing so that we ensure that the environment in which these discussions take place are not done so in a silo and or on a in an echo chamber where we only hear from states. Obviously the interconnection between all of these topics is necessary to have all the stakeholders around the table and so I think that that would be one of the biggest contributions that we can continue to work on together and then we’ll wait and see what happens tomorrow with the establishment of what we hope will be a

Sadhvi Saran: permanent mechanism. Thank you. Thank you. Glen? If I could just tie it back to the UN Convention

Glen Prichard: Against Cybercrime. As I mentioned before, there are really strong chapter in relation preventative measures and it calls on state parties to develop these cooperation mechanisms not only amongst themselves but also with private stakeholders and also with NGOs and the civil society. I think as a group here we do a lot of work, all the organisations that are part of this working group in relation to prevention. I think we can use this as a powerful mechanism to bring together and work collaboratively together to ensure that we’ve got actually a mandate now that we can actually use as that mechanism to bind people together, pull people together and make us work together. It talks about a range of different areas in which that cooperation can take place. It’s all in Article 53 or there’s a whole chapter six of the convention dedicated to prevention measures and it talks about raising awareness. So I think we need to collaboratively

Sadhvi Saran: Thank you, Moti. I guess the question would be a little bit more also for perhaps how

Moliehi Makumane: the Action Line C5 could evolve, you know, to meet the shifting cybersecurity landscape. I think what we’re hearing from member states is, like Kaya was saying, because of the way the threat landscape is evolving so quick, is that some of these multilateral agreements that were developed 10 plus years ago are not as responsive. But then throwing it back to member states is also to, in any way, get and continue to encourage member states to survey their needs, to understand the national threat landscapes, because alongside the calls for tailored, demand-driven capacity building, which is what we hear a lot, there’s this gap in understanding exactly where member states are at the national level. So any support and calls for that kind of encouragement for states to survey their needs and to identify what capacity needs they do have and what they do need is always helpful. But again, on capacity building, which is a big thing, I think, for any action line or any program of work on capacity building, is everything seems urgent and it is, but then how do we deliver capacity building that addresses today’s needs, as well as help member states prepare for future threats? And I think in the multi-stakeholder type of environments, like WSIS and what the OEWG was trying to do, is creating those touch points where, if member states are not able to do something, there are good ways in which they can engage the multi-stakeholder community to help them with some of those capabilities.

Sadhvi Saran: Thank you. And finally, back to you, Kaya, in terms of, again, what we’ve discussed today, what can organizations like the UN do to bridge the gap between state-led dialogues and the perspectives of the technical community and industry?

Kaja Ciglic: I think, you know, to what has been said earlier, I think it’s really important that the state-led dialogues actually consult I would say, with the multi-stakeholder community. And, you know, whether that is a link to WSIS or whether there is a, and I think the link with this action should be much stronger to some of the dialogues, but also the, in terms of the processes itself, it’s important that there is an opportunity for continuous conversation. I think the, and sort of we hear that frequently from states, not all states, but I think the recognition that both the private sector as the operators and civil society as the ones that are closest to seeing sort of some of the impact, they have important information and can share experiences on how to address some of the issues. At the same time, we don’t always see the openness and the formats created to enable those conversations. I think we’ve always said, you know, stakeholders should have a voice, not a vote, and I think that that was actually very well implemented through the Cyber Crime Convention negotiations, which had really good modalities. I think in terms of, I’m hopeful that going forward, whatever the new, hopefully permanent mechanism is on the, on sort of the norms discussions, the Future Open and the Working Group, I think borrows heavily from the Cyber Crime Convention. I think for us, you know, we get blocked as Microsoft, we apply every time, we get blocked by countries every single time, normally by one, sometimes by two, I feel most recently by three. And it sort of blocks a level of transparency, right? I think it’s important, like I said earlier, to recognize that not all states have the same voice. and Ms. Mary Hogan. I think we’re all in a room where we’re negotiating. And we’re negotiating in a way that the states always act in good faith. And that is the information that everybody should have in the room when we’re negotiating. When you are negotiating the states, basically. The at the same time, you know, process are slow. Like I said, I think there’s an opportunity for the. You know, there’s an opportunity for the states to sort of have a conversation about, you know, what are some of the new technologies that are being developed? Particular in terms of how some of the norms can be implemented in real life. You know, how some of the new developments like AI. I don’t think they, they, they might be some small. Like outliers where they, you might not need a new norm. The vast majority of the time you can take the existing laws. And, you know, have a conversation about what are the new technologies that are being developed. And, you know, having those conversations as part of the. Sort of multi-stakeholder conversation, not necessarily lawmaking. I think would be a helpful contribution.

Sadhvi Saran: Thank you. You know, in fact, there’s a UN interagency working group on AI, which is a group that’s been working on AI for a long time. And we’re really excited to see how we can learn from this cybersecurity experience of the past few years, but also to see how we can already interpret existing instruments and apply them to, to governance for AI. And we found that there were over 60 that existed. At least internationally that would directly apply. But with that, let me open up. Thank you again. Colleagues. For engaging in that rapid fire last question. So we do have a few minutes left for any questions from the room. Yes, sir, please. I don’t know if there’s any mics, but I think we could. Yes. Have you up at the table?

Wout de Natris: Thank you. My name is Walter from the board and I represent the dynamic coalition of the IGF here on the internet standard security and safety. What I notice in these discussions that is very often all going about mitigation and not about prevention. And what we’re advocating as a dynamic coalition is the implementation of long existing security related internet standards into products secure by design. And I think when you talk about capacity building, that is something that nations can learn how to procure their ICTs secure by design. And I think that Microsoft is a very good example because they negotiated with the Dutch government that everybody has now DNSSEC, I understand, in Microsoft systems, only because the government started a negotiation. So I think that that is an example with post quantum computing coming towards us, who knows tomorrow or 10 years from now, that is the most urgent problem we’re facing talking about standards deployment, we have the chance to do that before the so called Q day. And that’s actually the next session here in this room. So let me stop there. But I think that this is a topic that we’re working on as a dynamic coalition for five years, we’re ready to assist with capacity building. And everybody interested to work with us, just step up, and then we’ll can discuss further. But I think this is a tremendously important prevention topic and authentication. Thank you.

Sadhvi Saran: Absolutely, we couldn’t agree more with you had the idea you I was I was there at Oslo as well for, you know, a week ago. And there’s a lot to be said on that. But we can take a couple of questions and comments and come back. Yes, please. Yeah. My name is Nabi. I’m professor

Participant: in cyber security. And I need to tell you, actually, I’m doing research in the same area. And what I did last two years, research in, in a student, actually, I didn’t say anyone talk about the these these area of, of research, but I found I had a joke when I found how the student is dealing with the internet and social media. And that’s why I create like an unprofitable curriculum because I do believe that if you need to change the future in terms of digitalizing the future, we need to start from the students. So my message actually, I create a curriculum that have interactive screens to teach the students how you can deal with the Internet and social media and safe mode and how can you use in a fixed way AI and so on. So my message is we need to cooperate to start with stakeholders, with the level of students. So I do believe that we can change the future if we start from this area. Thank you very much.

Sadhvi Saran: Thank you. That’s an important point indeed. Any other comments, thoughts? So we have someone online. Kunle, would you like to take the floor and unmute yourself, please? All right. Thank you very much.

Participant: And yeah, I think to a large extent, I want to agree with the last speaker. And what I just want to add is the issue of how we are going to ensure that everybody is placed on the same pedestal when it comes to capacity building, knowing fully well that we have advanced country, we have developing countries, and we have less developed country. So we should be looking at a strategy that we ensure that everybody can be on the same pedestal, looking at cooperation. And of course, the issue of multistakeholderism is also very important here. So for me, I think we need to find a way to bring everybody together so that everybody can move at the same pace. I know that that is going to be difficult, but I think that is one of the conversations we need to engage in going forward. Thank you very much.

Sadhvi Saran: Thank you, sir. And indeed, that’s one of the main objectives of the WSIS Action Lines as well. So in the interest of time, perhaps we stop here. some great feedback around the question of the importance of technical standards, around skills development, capacity development, and of course, bridging the digital divide. So I open it up for our panelists, whoever would like to go first, if you have any feedback or any thoughts to share.

Kaja Ciglic: Maybe I’ll start and just to sort of build on the sort of the focus on the sort of the next generation. I think, I think you need to do both, right? I think you cannot wait for another sort of 10 years or 20 years before the sort of the young people today come into positions where they can change things. So I think, but I do think it’s important to invest, I continuously, I think this is a particular gripe of ours. If you look at university curriculums around the world, we’ve seen some progress in terms of how cybersecurity is made part of those, but if you look at IT courses in particular, but these are by and large, still voluntary. The fact that the majority of leading universities with pretty much anywhere around the world do not have cybersecurity as a compulsory part of IT curriculums, it demonstrates that there continues to be a disconnect about the importance of how important thinking about security is then, you know, from the effectively developer community. And you know, we talk a lot about the responsibility of states, but, you know, the responsibility of the technical communities, the industry, and I think that’s where also where we need to start. I agree completely.

Sadhvi Saran: Thank you.

Melanie Regimbal: Thank you. Well, I agree that capacity building is one of the core issues, but as is dialogue. And so we are quite hopeful that despite the fact that progress may seem very slow. In short, at a frustrating pace, we are confident that as long as we keep these issues at the forefront of the agenda, and we are able to move forward with these types of mechanisms, we will be able to find both mitigating measures and preventive measures as we go forth. Responsible behavior is always built on trust and confidence, and so this is the basis for the dialogue, and we’re hopeful that this topic will continue to be at the forefront of our agenda.

Sadhvi Saran: Thank you. Glen?

Glen Prichard: I’m just in terms of an uneven approach in terms of capacity building and support across the world. The reason we have these different treaties that are coming into vogue now in terms of the Cybercrime Convention, the Open Ending Working Group, is so we can have a set of common standards that we can work across the world with in terms of how we do investigate, how we combat cybercrime, how we prevent cybercrime, and the idea that sits behind that is getting everyone up to the same level, and that’s really what the whole intent of the convention is about. Of course, we can’t have safe havens for criminals, and the nature of cybercrime is that people can commit it from anywhere in the world now, so we have to bring everyone to that same standard, so I just wanted to leave you with that.

Sadhvi Saran: Thank you. Udi?

Moliehi Makumane: Thanks, Satvi. Again, on the matter of capacity building, I think what the processes have also agreed on is that states are not starting from the same level, and so they should be very targeted in specific capacity building depending on where states sit on the maturity ladder, if I can call it that, and what we’ve seen is when last year the chair convened a global roundtable on cybercapacity building, that helped us. said, it happens so quickly and the needs emerge so quick. We do a scoping for six months and have to deliver within the next six months. Otherwise, other needs crop up because of the landscape, but it’s something that we’re all keeping an eye on.

Sadhvi Saran: Thank you. And I think we have a few questions online as well, but unfortunately we’re out of time. So I just want to say thank you again. Thank you for taking the time to come and speak with us and thank you for listening and for your feedback and your comments. Hopefully, we can continue this dialogue. It doesn’t have to end here, but there’s also a session tomorrow that I wanted to flag, which speaks a little bit in terms of armed conflicts extending into cyberspace. It’s a project by the International Committee of the Red Cross. It’s called the Digital Emblem Project. It’s in room C at 1130 tomorrow, where the idea is to see how we could potentially flag networks in cases of armed conflicts where they’re being used for civilian purposes, for medical purposes, and so on. So I think an interesting discussion there as well. But with that, thank you very much again and hope you enjoy the rest of the day at WSIS Forum in the air for good. Thank you.

Agreement points

Importance of multilateral cooperation and consensus-building in cybersecurity governance

Speakers

– Glen Prichard
– Melanie Regimbal
– Sadhvi Saran

Arguments

Convention represents major multilateral achievement despite geopolitical tensions, involving 155 member states and extensive stakeholder participation over three years

Working group operates by consensus and has achieved three annual reports approved unanimously, demonstrating global commitment to cybersecurity cooperation

Addressing current cybersecurity challenges requires unified multilateral and multi-stakeholder efforts with enhanced global collaboration

Summary

All speakers emphasized the critical importance of multilateral cooperation and consensus-building in cybersecurity governance, highlighting that achieving agreement among nations in the current geopolitical climate represents a significant accomplishment and demonstrates the universal recognition of cybersecurity as a priority issue.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Need for comprehensive multi-stakeholder engagement in cybersecurity processes

Speakers

– Glen Prichard
– Melanie Regimbal
– Kaja Ciglic

Arguments

Convention includes strong preventative measures and calls for cooperation between states, private sector, and civil society organizations

Need for stronger modalities to ensure diverse stakeholder participation in cybersecurity governance mechanisms

Importance of continuous consultation between state-led dialogues and technical community, though access barriers persist for private sector

Summary

There is strong consensus that effective cybersecurity governance requires meaningful participation from all stakeholders – governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities – with proper modalities to ensure their voices are heard in decision-making processes.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Capacity building must be tailored to different national development levels and maturity

Speakers

– Glen Prichard
– Moliehi Makumane
– Participant

Arguments

Convention aims to establish common standards globally to eliminate safe havens for cybercriminals and bring all countries to same level

Targeted capacity building required based on where states sit on cybersecurity maturity spectrum

Need for strategies ensuring advanced, developing, and least developed countries can progress at similar pace through cooperation

Summary

All speakers agreed that capacity building efforts must recognize that countries start from different levels of cybersecurity maturity and require tailored, targeted approaches to bring everyone to common standards while eliminating safe havens for cybercriminals.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Development

Critical importance of cybersecurity education and prevention

Speakers

– Kaja Ciglic
– Wout de Natris
– Participant

Arguments

University IT curricula worldwide still lack mandatory cybersecurity components, creating gap in developer community security awareness

Emphasis needed on prevention through implementation of existing security standards and secure-by-design procurement practices

Cybersecurity education should start with students through interactive curricula teaching safe internet and AI usage

Summary

There is strong agreement that prevention through education is crucial, starting from university curricula and extending to students at all levels, with emphasis on implementing existing security standards and secure-by-design principles rather than just focusing on mitigation after incidents occur.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized that achieving consensus in cybersecurity governance represents a remarkable accomplishment given current geopolitical tensions, with both processes involving extensive stakeholder participation and demonstrating global commitment to cooperation.

Speakers

– Glen Prichard
– Melanie Regimbal

Arguments

Convention represents major multilateral achievement despite geopolitical tensions, involving 155 member states and extensive stakeholder participation over three years

Working group operates by consensus and has achieved three annual reports approved unanimously, demonstrating global commitment to cybersecurity cooperation

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognized that the rapidly evolving threat landscape requires adaptive and responsive approaches, with Makumane focusing on the capacity building response and Ciglic detailing the specific nature of emerging threats.

Speakers

– Moliehi Makumane
– Kaja Ciglic

Arguments

Capacity building must be tailored and demand-driven, addressing varying national maturity levels and rapidly evolving threat landscapes

Threat landscape deteriorating with increased ransomware operations and convergence between nation-state actors and cybercriminals

Topics

Cybersecurity

Both speakers advocated for prevention-focused approaches, with de Natris emphasizing technical standards implementation and the participant focusing on educational prevention starting with students.

Speakers

– Wout de Natris
– Participant

Arguments

Emphasis needed on prevention through implementation of existing security standards and secure-by-design procurement practices

Cybersecurity education should start with students through interactive curricula teaching safe internet and AI usage

Topics

Cybersecurity | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

AI’s current limited role in innovative cyberattacks despite widespread concerns

Speakers

– Kaja Ciglic

Arguments

AI being used more for defensive purposes while attackers use it primarily as productivity tool rather than for innovative attacks

Explanation

It’s unexpected that despite widespread fears about AI enabling sophisticated cyberattacks, the private sector perspective reveals that AI is currently being used more for defense than for innovative attacks, with attackers primarily using it as a productivity tool for basic tasks like drafting phishing emails.

Topics

Cybersecurity

Successful multilateral cooperation despite global geopolitical tensions

Speakers

– Glen Prichard
– Melanie Regimbal

Arguments

Convention represents major multilateral achievement despite geopolitical tensions, involving 155 member states and extensive stakeholder participation over three years

Working group operates by consensus and has achieved three annual reports approved unanimously, demonstrating global commitment to cybersecurity cooperation

Explanation

It’s remarkable that in an era of significant geopolitical tensions and global disagreements, cybersecurity has emerged as an area where nations can still achieve consensus and multilateral cooperation, suggesting that cyber threats are universally recognized as transcending political boundaries.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on the need for multilateral cooperation, comprehensive multi-stakeholder engagement, tailored capacity building, and prevention-focused approaches to cybersecurity. All speakers agreed that cybersecurity challenges require unified global responses that include all stakeholders and recognize different national starting points.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for cybersecurity governance. The agreement across UN agencies, private sector, and civil society representatives suggests a mature understanding of cybersecurity as a global challenge requiring coordinated responses. This consensus provides a strong foundation for implementing the various frameworks and mechanisms discussed, though practical challenges around stakeholder access and capacity building implementation remain.

Different viewpoints

Pace of multilateral progress versus urgency of threat landscape

Speakers

– Kaja Ciglic
– Melanie Regimbal

Arguments

I think the, it’s, I think for us, I think we’re a little bit less optimistic than sort of some of the discussions here. I think the, well, obviously in the broader geopolitical environment, it’s important that progress is made, but oftentimes the progress is very incremental in the desire to have consensus and the threat landscape is getting worse day by day

Responsible behavior is always built on trust and confidence, and so this is the basis for the dialogue, and we’re hopeful that this topic will continue to be at the forefront of our agenda

Summary

Kaja Ciglic from Microsoft expresses pessimism about the slow pace of multilateral progress compared to rapidly deteriorating threats, while Melanie Regimbal from UNODA emphasizes the importance of maintaining dialogue and consensus-building despite slow progress

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Focus on mitigation versus prevention in cybersecurity approaches

Speakers

– Wout de Natris
– Glen Prichard
– Melanie Regimbal
– Moliehi Makumane

Arguments

What I notice in these discussions that is very often all going about mitigation and not about prevention. And what we’re advocating as a dynamic coalition is the implementation of long existing security related internet standards into products secure by design

Convention includes strong preventative measures and calls for cooperation between states, private sector, and civil society organizations

Summary

Wout de Natris argues that discussions focus too much on mitigation rather than prevention through technical standards implementation, while the UN representatives emphasize that their frameworks do include preventative measures, though perhaps not with the technical focus de Natris advocates

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Optimism about multilateral cybersecurity progress

Speakers

– Kaja Ciglic
– Glen Prichard
– Melanie Regimbal

Arguments

I think the, it’s, I think for us, I think we’re a little bit less optimistic than sort of some of the discussions here

Convention represents major multilateral achievement despite geopolitical tensions, involving 155 member states and extensive stakeholder participation over three years

Working group operates by consensus and has achieved three annual reports approved unanimously, demonstrating global commitment to cybersecurity cooperation

Explanation

Unexpectedly, the private sector representative (Microsoft) is more pessimistic about progress than the UN representatives, despite typically being seen as more agile and solution-oriented. This reverses the expected dynamic where private sector might be more optimistic about technological solutions while government representatives might be more cautious about diplomatic progress

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion reveals moderate disagreements primarily around the pace and effectiveness of current multilateral approaches versus the urgency of evolving threats, and different emphases on technical prevention versus diplomatic frameworks

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. While speakers have different perspectives on approach and pace, they share fundamental agreement on the importance of cybersecurity cooperation, multi-stakeholder engagement, and capacity building. The disagreements are more about methodology and urgency rather than fundamental goals, suggesting potential for constructive dialogue and complementary approaches rather than irreconcilable differences

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized that achieving consensus in cybersecurity governance represents a remarkable accomplishment given current geopolitical tensions, with both processes involving extensive stakeholder participation and demonstrating global commitment to cooperation.

Speakers

– Glen Prichard
– Melanie Regimbal

Arguments

Convention represents major multilateral achievement despite geopolitical tensions, involving 155 member states and extensive stakeholder participation over three years

Working group operates by consensus and has achieved three annual reports approved unanimously, demonstrating global commitment to cybersecurity cooperation

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognized that the rapidly evolving threat landscape requires adaptive and responsive approaches, with Makumane focusing on the capacity building response and Ciglic detailing the specific nature of emerging threats.

Speakers

– Moliehi Makumane
– Kaja Ciglic

Arguments

Capacity building must be tailored and demand-driven, addressing varying national maturity levels and rapidly evolving threat landscapes

Threat landscape deteriorating with increased ransomware operations and convergence between nation-state actors and cybercriminals

Topics

Cybersecurity

Both speakers advocated for prevention-focused approaches, with de Natris emphasizing technical standards implementation and the participant focusing on educational prevention starting with students.

Speakers

– Wout de Natris
– Participant

Arguments

Emphasis needed on prevention through implementation of existing security standards and secure-by-design procurement practices

Cybersecurity education should start with students through interactive curricula teaching safe internet and AI usage

Topics

Cybersecurity | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

The UN Cybercrime Convention represents a major multilateral achievement, involving 155 member states over three years of negotiations, with signing ceremony scheduled for October 25-26 in Vietnam

The Open-Ended Working Group on ICT Security is concluding its five-year process and aims to establish a permanent mechanism for addressing cybersecurity issues through consensus-based approach

There is a clear evolution from voluntary cybersecurity norms to concrete implementation mechanisms, with states increasingly incorporating norms into national strategies

The cybersecurity threat landscape is deteriorating rapidly, with increased ransomware operations and convergence between nation-state actors and cybercriminals

Multi-stakeholder engagement remains crucial but faces barriers, particularly for private sector participation in state-led dialogues

Prevention through technical standards implementation and cybersecurity education starting at student level is essential for long-term security

Capacity building must be tailored to different national maturity levels while ensuring equitable progress across developed and developing countries

Resolutions and action items

UNODC to support countries with ratification of the UN Cybercrime Convention and harmonization of legal frameworks

Registration for the Vietnam signing ceremony to open soon on the convention’s webpage

UNODA to continue managing the global intergovernmental points of contact directory with over 120 participating states

Final report of the Open-Ended Working Group to be concluded the day after this session

WSIS stakeholders to support modalities for stakeholder engagement in future permanent cybersecurity mechanisms

Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards Security and Safety offers assistance with capacity building on secure-by-design implementation

Unresolved issues

How to bridge the gap between slow multilateral progress and rapidly evolving cyber threats

Ensuring equitable participation of all stakeholders, particularly addressing financial and access barriers

Balancing state sovereignty with need for global cooperation in cybersecurity governance

Addressing the convergence between nation-state actors and cybercriminals while maintaining diplomatic relations

Implementing secure-by-design principles across diverse national procurement systems

Making cybersecurity education mandatory in university IT curricula globally

Developing responsive capacity building that addresses both current needs and future threats

Suggested compromises

Stakeholders should have ‘a voice, not a vote’ in state-led cybersecurity dialogues

Hybrid meeting options to reduce financial burden and environmental impact while maintaining participation

Sponsorship programs focusing on women and developing country delegates to improve participation balance

Complementary rather than competing mechanisms between different UN cybersecurity processes

Tailored, demand-driven capacity building that recognizes different national starting points rather than one-size-fits-all approaches

Continuous consultation processes between state-led dialogues and multi-stakeholder community rather than isolated negotiations

The fact that we could come together and have member states agree on a common framework to combat and prevent cybercrime shows the importance of this thing, because there’s not many things that the world are agreeing on at the moment, and the fact that they all come together and agreed on that.

Speaker

Glen Prichard

Reason

This comment reframes the cybercrime convention not just as a technical achievement, but as a rare example of successful multilateralism in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical landscape. It highlights the unique urgency that cybercrime presents, transcending traditional political divisions.

Impact

This observation set a tone of cautious optimism for the discussion and established cybersecurity as a unifying issue that can bridge geopolitical divides, influencing how other panelists framed their own processes as achievements despite global tensions.

We see close to 600 million identity, just identity attacks per day. We track over 80 trillion signals from across our network again on a daily basis, which is not something that any human could handle.

Speaker

Kaja Ciglic

Reason

These staggering numbers provide concrete evidence of the scale mismatch between current threats and human capacity to respond. This shifts the discussion from abstract policy frameworks to the urgent reality of what organizations are facing daily.

Impact

This comment created a stark contrast with the slower-paced multilateral processes discussed earlier, highlighting the tension between the speed of threats and the pace of international cooperation. It reinforced the need for AI-assisted defense and challenged the adequacy of current approaches.

We are seeing increasing convergence between nation state actors and cyber criminals… they’re either tolerating to try to be charitable to a lot of them, and violating the norm of due diligence, cybercrime operators acting outside from their country, attacking other countries, or sometimes actively participating through their cybersecurity apparatus.

Speaker

Kaja Ciglic

Reason

This comment exposes a fundamental challenge to the state-centric approach of UN processes – when states themselves are part of the problem through tolerance or active participation in cybercrime. It questions the basic assumptions underlying international cooperation frameworks.

Impact

This observation added complexity to the discussion by highlighting the limitations of state-led solutions when states themselves may be complicit. It implicitly challenged the optimism of earlier speakers about international cooperation and introduced the theme of accountability gaps.

What I notice in these discussions that is very often all going about mitigation and not about prevention… we’re advocating as a dynamic coalition is the implementation of long existing security related internet standards into products secure by design.

Speaker

Wout de Natris

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the entire framing of the discussion by pointing out that much focus is on responding to problems rather than preventing them through better technical implementation. It suggests that solutions already exist but aren’t being deployed.

Impact

This intervention shifted the conversation from high-level policy frameworks to practical technical implementation, introducing the concept that prevention through secure-by-design approaches might be more effective than the mitigation-focused international processes being discussed.

If you look at university curriculums around the world… the majority of leading universities with pretty much anywhere around the world do not have cybersecurity as a compulsory part of IT curriculums, it demonstrates that there continues to be a disconnect about the importance of how important thinking about security is.

Speaker

Kaja Ciglic

Reason

This comment identifies a fundamental structural problem in how the next generation of IT professionals is being trained, suggesting that the cybersecurity crisis is being perpetuated at the educational level. It connects current threats to systemic educational gaps.

Impact

This observation broadened the discussion beyond immediate policy responses to longer-term structural changes needed in education systems. It reinforced the earlier audience comment about starting with students and added urgency to educational reform as a cybersecurity imperative.

Because the norms are voluntary and non-binding, a lot of time and effort has gone into raising awareness about what the norms are… though non-binding and voluntary, are reasonable standards of expectations for behavior of member states in cyberspace.

Speaker

Moliehi Makumane

Reason

This comment highlights a key tension in international governance – the gap between voluntary norms and binding enforcement. It suggests that even non-binding agreements can have normative power, but questions remain about their practical effectiveness.

Impact

This observation provided nuance to the discussion about the effectiveness of international processes, suggesting that progress shouldn’t only be measured by binding agreements but also by the establishment of behavioral expectations and their integration into national policies.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively shaped the discussion by introducing multiple layers of complexity and tension that weren’t apparent in the initial presentations. While the UN representatives presented their processes as achievements in multilateral cooperation, the private sector perspective and audience interventions revealed significant gaps between policy frameworks and operational realities. The discussion evolved from celebrating international cooperation to acknowledging the limitations of state-centric approaches, the scale mismatch between threats and responses, and the need for more fundamental changes in technical implementation and education. The most impactful comments challenged the underlying assumptions of the international processes being discussed, shifting the conversation from ‘how to improve current approaches’ to ‘whether current approaches are adequate.’ This created a more honest and comprehensive dialogue about the true challenges facing cybersecurity governance, moving beyond diplomatic optimism to confront practical limitations and structural problems.

How can WSIS stakeholders contribute to and benefit from the processes that UNODA is leading, given the complex landscape of cybersecurity governance?

Speaker

Sadhvi Saran

Explanation

This was posed as a direct question to understand how the World Summit on the Information Society framework can better integrate with and support UN disarmament processes in cybersecurity

How can the Action Line C5 evolve to meet the shifting cybersecurity landscape?

Speaker

Sadhvi Saran

Explanation

This question addresses the need to adapt existing frameworks to respond to rapidly evolving cyber threats and technological changes

What can organizations like the UN do to bridge the gap between state-led dialogues and the perspectives of the technical community and industry?

Speaker

Sadhvi Saran

Explanation

This explores the challenge of ensuring meaningful multi-stakeholder participation in intergovernmental cybersecurity processes

How can existing international laws and norms be interpreted and applied to AI governance?

Speaker

Sadhvi Saran

Explanation

This relates to applying lessons learned from cybersecurity governance to emerging AI governance challenges, building on the finding that over 60 existing international instruments could apply to AI

How can secure-by-design principles and internet security standards be better implemented in government procurement and capacity building?

Speaker

Wout de Natris

Explanation

This addresses the gap between focusing on mitigation versus prevention, emphasizing the need for proactive security measures in ICT procurement

How can cybersecurity education be integrated as mandatory components in university IT curricula globally?

Speaker

Kaja Ciglic

Explanation

This highlights the disconnect between the importance of cybersecurity and its optional status in most university IT programs worldwide

How can capacity building strategies ensure all countries (advanced, developing, and least developed) can progress at a more equitable pace in cybersecurity capabilities?

Speaker

Online participant (Kunle)

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of bridging the digital divide and ensuring inclusive cybersecurity capacity building across different development levels

How can cybersecurity education and awareness programs be developed and implemented at the student level to shape future digital citizens?

Speaker

Professor Nabi

Explanation

This focuses on the need for early intervention in cybersecurity education to build a more security-conscious next generation

How can capacity building programs be made more responsive to rapidly evolving threat landscapes while maintaining effectiveness?

Speaker

Moliehi Makumane

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of delivering timely and relevant capacity building when cyber threats and needs change faster than traditional program development cycles

Summary

This discussion focused on how growing space ecosystems can be leveraged to achieve Sustainable Development Goals, featuring four expert panelists examining different aspects of the space industry. Alexandre Vallet, moderating from the ITU, emphasized that satellite technology has evolved from limited applications to a comprehensive space ecosystem that extends far beyond providing broadband connectivity to underserved areas.

Almudena Azcarate-Ortega from UNIDIR explained that space security involves preventing deliberate harm to space systems, distinguishing it from space safety which addresses unintentional hazards. She highlighted that while the Outer Space Treaty provides a legal framework, there is no specific treaty addressing space security concerns, leading to ongoing multilateral discussions about norms and responsible behavior in space. The lack of common understanding of terminology across different languages and legal systems presents significant challenges in international negotiations.

Dr. Ingo Baumann discussed the practical role of space lawyers, noting that over 50 countries now have national space laws, with Europe proposing the first regional EU Space Act. He emphasized that modern space legislation focuses increasingly on national competitiveness and fostering space ecosystems rather than merely implementing international obligations.

Bruno Bechard from Kineis described how their IoT satellite constellation supports SDGs through wildlife tracking, environmental monitoring, and supply chain optimization, covering 85% of Earth’s surface not served by terrestrial networks. However, he noted that narrowband services face regulatory challenges different from broadband providers.

Chloe Saboye-Pasquier from Ridespace explained their role as launch brokers helping satellite operators navigate complex regulatory requirements across multiple jurisdictions. She identified radio frequency registration delays and the need for consistent international regulations as major barriers for newcomers to space.

The discussion concluded that while space technology offers tremendous potential for achieving SDGs, success depends on addressing security challenges, harmonizing legal frameworks, and ensuring accessible regulatory processes for emerging space actors.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Space Security Framework and Challenges**: Discussion of what constitutes space security (deliberate threats vs. accidental hazards), current governance through treaties like the Outer Space Treaty, and emerging threats including counter-space capabilities, space debris, and cyber attacks on space systems.

– **Legal and Regulatory Frameworks for Space Activities**: Examination of the evolution of national space laws from basic international treaty compliance to competitive frameworks supporting national space ecosystems, including the proposed EU Space Act as a potential model for regional harmonization.

– **Innovative Space Services Supporting SDGs**: Presentation of concrete examples including Kineis’s IoT satellite services for environmental monitoring, wildlife tracking, and supply chain management, demonstrating how space technologies directly contribute to Sustainable Development Goals.

– **Barriers to Space Access and Market Entry**: Discussion of obstacles facing new space companies and countries, including regulatory complexity, radio frequency registration delays, inconsistent national laws, and the need for better coordination between different regulatory frameworks.

– **Future Priorities and Solutions**: Identification of urgent needs including improved international cooperation, standardized terminology in multilateral discussions, enhanced transparency and confidence-building measures, and potential revival of international organizational models for certain space applications.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how the growing space ecosystem can be better leveraged to achieve Sustainable Development Goals, examining both the current state of space security, legal frameworks, and innovative services, while identifying barriers and future priorities for making space technologies more accessible and effective in addressing global challenges.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative, and forward-looking tone throughout. Speakers demonstrated expertise while acknowledging challenges, and the conversation was constructive rather than critical. The tone remained consistently optimistic about space technology’s potential to address global issues, while being realistic about current obstacles and the complexity of international coordination required to overcome them.

Speakers

– **Alexandre Vallet** – Chief of the Space Services Department in the ITU Radio Communication Bureau, Session Moderator

– **Almudena Azcarate Ortega** – Lead Space Security Researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), Scholar specializing in space security and multilateral discussions

– **Bruno Bechard** – Chief Technical Officer at Kineis (LEO satellite operator), Former CTO of Rivada Space Networks, Background in Orange Group with experience in fixed, mobile, satellite and IT sectors

– **Ingo Baumann** – Founding Partner of BH Oligar (British technology law firm based in Cologne, Germany), Space Law Practitioner specializing in national, European and international high-technology projects, Member of the International Institute of Space Law and the UPN Center for Space Law

– **Chloe Saboye Pasquier** – Multi-launcher Launch Mission Manager at Hyde Space, Specialist in managing cross-field teams and launch campaigns, Expert in regulatory matters including radio frequency registration and compliance

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Leveraging Growing Space Ecosystems for Sustainable Development Goals: A Panel Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This expert panel discussion, moderated by Alexandre Vallet from the ITU Radio Communication Bureau, examined how the rapidly expanding space ecosystem can be leveraged to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Held on the final day of the YCS plus 20 high level event, the session brought together four distinguished speakers representing different facets of the space industry: space security research, legal frameworks, satellite operations, and launch services.

Vallet opened by noting that 22 years ago, the 2003 World Summit on the Information Society plan of action already recognized satellite technology’s role in development. Since then, the industry has evolved from “a limited set of satellite markets into a full space ecosystem.” The discussion revealed both the tremendous potential of modern space technologies and the significant challenges that must be addressed to fully realize this potential, including regulatory gaps, security vulnerabilities, and the need for enhanced international coordination.

## Space Security Framework and Contemporary Challenges

Almudena Azcarate Ortega from UNIDIR provided foundational clarity by distinguishing between space security and space safety—a distinction critical for understanding the regulatory landscape. She explained that “space security deals more with those intentional threats or intentional harms, and then space safety deals with unintentional harms.”

Contrary to common perceptions, Azcarate Ortega emphasized that space security does not exist in a legal vacuum. The Outer Space Treaty provides a legal framework of principles relevant to space security concerns, though she acknowledged there is no specific treaty addressing space security comprehensively. Current governance relies on various non-binding mechanisms and ongoing multilateral discussions through UN bodies, including the Group of Governmental Experts and the Open-Ended Working Group.

The security challenges facing space systems are increasingly sophisticated, including kinetic attacks (physical destruction of satellites), non-kinetic attacks (jamming, spoofing, cyber attacks), and electronic warfare capabilities. These counter-space capabilities pose significant dangers not only to space systems themselves but also to Earth-based services that depend on satellite infrastructure.

Azcarate Ortega highlighted the connection between terrestrial geopolitics and space security: “Space security is influenced by the geopolitical climate that we have on Earth… The more tense that relations are on Earth, the more tense, or the more lack of trust that we will see when it comes to space activities.”

A significant barrier to effective space security governance is the lack of common understanding of terminology across different languages and legal systems. Azcarate Ortega noted that “in Spanish, for example, the same word is used for both security and safety.” To address this issue, UNIDIR has developed a space security lexicon available at spacesecuritylexicon.org in six official languages.

## Evolution of Legal Frameworks and Regulatory Approaches

Dr. Ingo Baumann provided a historical perspective on the evolution of space law, identifying three distinct phases in national space legislation development. The first phase focused purely on implementing international law obligations. The second phase emerged around university and startup projects, as governments recognized the need to support emerging space activities. The third and ongoing phase represents a shift towards national competitiveness, with space laws increasingly designed to enhance a country’s position in the global space economy.

This evolution reflects how governments now view space activities as a strategic sector requiring active promotion rather than just careful regulation. Baumann noted that more than 50 countries now have national space laws, with 13 out of 27 EU countries having established frameworks.

The proposed EU Space Act represents a significant development as the first supranational space law framework. Baumann suggested this could serve as a model for other regions, potentially offering a middle path between purely national approaches and global governance mechanisms.

Baumann’s professional experience revealed that space lawyers work across three main areas: government consultancy on policy and regulatory matters, public procurement for space programmes, and commercial contracts between space companies. Interestingly, he suggested that international collaboration models from the 1970s-80s satellite organizations might still be relevant for addressing current global challenges, noting that “if we would bring maybe a bit more of international collaboration and mechanisms to that sometimes we may be faster to really find stable solutions for the problems we are looking to.”

## Innovative Space Services Supporting Sustainable Development

Bruno Bechard from Kineis provided concrete examples of how modern space technologies directly contribute to SDGs. Kineis operates 25 nanosatellites at 650 kilometers altitude with 20 ground stations, providing Internet of Things (IoT), localization, and maritime tracking services. This represents a significant upgrade to the 40-year-old Argos system—improving capabilities by a factor of 100.

The scope of applications demonstrates space technology’s potential beyond traditional connectivity services. Kineis’s services enable wildlife tracking for conservation efforts, environmental monitoring including fire detection, and supply chain optimization. These applications cover approximately 85% of Earth’s surface not served by terrestrial networks.

Bechard emphasized that building successful space ecosystems requires comprehensive support structures: “Building ecosystems requires training programs and information sharing to help universities and partners develop applications using new space technologies.”

However, Bechard identified significant regulatory challenges facing narrowband services. Unlike broadband providers, narrowband IoT services require different regulatory frameworks and licensing conditions, with affordable fees that match their smaller business cases. Current regulatory approaches often fail to account for these differences, creating barriers to market entry and service development.

## Market Access Barriers and Operational Complexities

Chloe Saboye Pasquier from Ridespace provided insights into practical challenges facing newcomers to the space industry. As a launch solution broker, Ridespace connects satellite operators with launch providers while managing complex regulatory compliance requirements across multiple jurisdictions. The company achieved “the first completely private launch mission between China and foreign countries.”

The complexity of multi-jurisdictional operations was illustrated through a concrete scenario: “We have to imagine the worst case scenario for us would be to have a satellite for one country launching on a launch vehicle for another country, but actually this launch vehicle use a launch site from a third country. So basically we would be under three different national registration in addition to all the international or regional institutions.”

Radio frequency registration presents particular difficulties for small satellite missions. Saboye Pasquier noted that delays of 4-6 months for APAA registration create significant barriers, especially for missions with short operational lifespans. The inefficiency of current spectrum allocation systems was highlighted through the observation that many registered frequencies remain unused while newcomers struggle to access spectrum for short-term missions.

Looking towards future technologies, Saboye Pasquier identified direct-to-device satellite services using constellation-to-constellation communication as an emerging area requiring new regulatory approaches. These services would eliminate the need for ground stations by communicating through existing constellations.

The need for consistency and mutual recognition between different national space regulations emerged as a critical priority. Saboye Pasquier emphasized that “we need consistency and mutual recognition between different national space regulations to enable multi-jurisdictional missions.”

## Key Challenges and Proposed Solutions

The discussion identified several critical unresolved issues requiring continued attention. Regulatory frameworks for narrowband IoT services lag behind those for broadband, creating market access barriers. Radio frequency registration delays continue to impede small satellite missions, particularly in countries without dedicated space agencies.

The absence of mechanisms for sharing unused radio frequency allocations prevents efficient spectrum utilization. Space traffic management and debris mitigation require enhanced international coordination beyond current voluntary guidelines. The growing threat of counter-space capabilities demands improved security measures and international cooperation.

Several concrete solutions emerged from the discussion. Adapting international collaboration models from earlier satellite organizations could provide frameworks for addressing global challenges through space technologies. Building ecosystems through training programs and information sharing could help develop applications using new space technologies.

Creating rental or sharing mechanisms for radio frequency bands could help newcomers access spectrum for short-term missions while improving overall efficiency. Establishing better communication channels between national regulators could address regulatory disparities and improve coordination for multi-jurisdictional operations.

## Implications for Sustainable Development

The discussion revealed that space technologies offer significant opportunities for achieving SDGs, but realizing this potential requires addressing fundamental challenges in governance, security, and accessibility. The evolution from limited satellite applications to comprehensive space ecosystems creates new possibilities for addressing global challenges while demanding more sophisticated regulatory approaches.

The connection between space security and terrestrial geopolitics suggests that achieving sustainable space development requires addressing broader issues of international relations and trust-building. The linguistic and cultural barriers to effective multilateral cooperation highlight the need for enhanced communication between different stakeholders.

The democratization of space access enables more diverse applications and innovations but also creates regulatory complexity that existing frameworks struggle to address.

## Conclusion

This discussion demonstrated that leveraging growing space ecosystems for sustainable development requires a multifaceted approach addressing technical, legal, political, and cultural challenges. The speakers revealed both the tremendous potential of modern space technologies and the significant barriers that must be overcome to fully realize this potential.

The path forward requires enhanced international cooperation, regulatory modernization, and ecosystem building to fully leverage space technologies for global challenges. Success depends on addressing not just technological and regulatory challenges, but also fundamental issues of international cooperation and governance.

The recording of this session will be made available online on the YCIS website, ensuring broader access to these important discussions. The challenge now lies in translating these insights into concrete policy actions and international cooperation mechanisms that enable space technologies to make their full contribution to achieving Sustainable Development Goals.

Alexandre Vallet: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . start and good morning and welcome to the final day of the YCS plus 20 high level event. My name is Alexandre Vallée, I’m the chief of the space services department in the IQ radio communication bureau, and I will moderate this session this morning. We are going to discuss the theme of how growing space ecosystems can be better leveraged to achieve these sustainable development goals. And let me start by providing you with a bit of context. As you may have noted, probably satellite technology is now very often quoted, even in the non-specialized press, as having a crucial role to play in providing connectivity and bridging the digital divide. Interestingly enough, the plan of action that was adopted at the end of the first session of the World Summit on the Information Society back in December 2003 was already recognizing this role by calling to develop and strengthen national, regional, and international broadband network infrastructure, including delivery by satellite and other systems, in order to help in providing the capacity to match the needs of countries and their citizens and for the delivery of new ICT-based services. You see, 22 years ago, this was already a goal of the OASIS. Since 2003, however, thanks to innovation from the satellite industry, satellite applications have considerably evolved and have even transformed from a limited set of satellite markets into a full space ecosystem. And today, satellite technologies cannot be confined anymore to the delivery of global broadband connectivity services for underserved areas. But even if this goal remains extremely difficult, it is not an easy task to achieve in the long term. So, I would like to thank you for your attention, and I would like to invite you to join us next time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. important, we can see that service innovation and new satellite technologies offer promises of implementing a more comprehensive space ecosystem. We will offer more solutions to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. The crucial building block of the space ecosystem is law. Not only space law, but a comprehensive and sound legal frameworks that are providing the necessary legal certainty and stability for the space economy to flourish. However, all these initiatives and innovations are in vain if they cannot be deployed, used and commercialized in a peaceful environment. This is why also ensuring security in outer space is crucial in the years to come. Especially if we really want to benefit from the new applications and the space technologies that are currently emerging. This is why these sessions will aim at providing you with an understanding of potential security challenges posed by the growing use of outer space, also give you a better grasp of the diversity of space applications today, and also give you or provide you with more insights into the key legal challenges that remain to create a true full space economy. In this session, I am joined by four wonderful remote panelists. First, Ms. Almudena Skarate-Urtega, the lead space security researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, UNIDIR. In her position, she has led UNIDIR’s participation in several multilateral discussions on space security, including the 2022-2023 UN Open-Ended Working Group on Reducing Space Through to spread threats through norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviour. She’s also an eminent scholar who has widely published and briefed UN member states on the topic of space security. So she will provide very useful insights on this matter. The second panelist is Mr Bruno Bechard, the Chief Technical Officer at Kinesis, which is a LEO satellite operator dedicated to low data rate applications like Internet of Things, AIS or localisation services. He will tell us more about what his company is offering during this session. Bruno has spent most of his career with the Orange Group, where he held a number of positions of responsibility in both engineering and operations in the fixed, mobile, satellite and IT sectors. For the past two years, he was also CTO of Rivada Space Networks. A background of both traditional telco and a more space-oriented turn of career recently. Thank you very much for joining me. Dr Ingo Bormann is the founding partner of BH Oligar. It’s a British technology law firm based in Cologne, Germany. He specialises in national, European and international high-technology projects, mostly in the space industry. His customers include leading stakeholders such as the European Commission, European Space Agency, German Space Agency or large satellite operators, but also SME and new space start-ups. He has a broad experience and practice in the field of practical space law, a bit opposed to theoretical space law. He will give us his view as a practitioner in space law. It is worth noting that Dr Bormann is also a member of the International Institute… Institute of Space Law and the UPN Center for Space Law. And finally, Ms. Chloé Saboyer-Pasquier, a multi-launcher launch mission manager at Hyde Space, with more than 15 missions launched or in progress. And Ms. Pasquier will also provide us more information about what exactly what kind of services the company is providing later in the panel. But just to mention that she herself specializes in managing cross-field teams and then to ensure mission readiness and leading the launch campaigns for the customers of Hyde Space. So this includes support for logistics, for regulatory matters, such as radio frequency registration, transportation, to ensure compliance with all national and international regulation of satellite. So let me now start maybe with the topic of space security and turn to Almudena for a first question. Based on your quite rich experience in the field of space security, could you shed for our audience some light on what is space security exactly and how it is currently ensured? Because we don’t really hear in the press that something is going wrong in space. So it should be ensured currently. Please, you have the floor. Thank you.

Almudena Azcarate Ortega: Thank you very much, Alexandre. And thank you also to the ITU for the invitation. It’s such a shame that I couldn’t be there in person. But I’m very pleased to be here today sharing this panel with other wonderful speakers. So when we talk about space security, particularly at the multilateral level, we refer to the relationship that exists among space objects and activities and the maintenance of peace and security and disarmament, including what we call the prevention of unauthorised in outer space, or PAROS, which is the sort of agenda item under which all space. security discussions are held at the UN level. Space security discussions in the United Nations are discussed in different fora, such as the Conference on Disarmament, the First Committee of the General Assembly and the Disarmament Commission. And space security is also commonly understood to refer to measures designed to prevent deliberate harms to space systems. So I do want to highlight that deliberate aspect of the harms include, and when I talk about space system, I talk about the space system as a whole, but also its component parts. And the reason why I underscored the deliberate harms or the intentional threats undertaken by another actor is because this is different to space safety, which is another area of multinatural space security, sorry, multinatural space discussions that we have at the UN. Space safety relates more closely to the peaceful uses of our space. Those are the kinds of conversations that are happening in Copios in Vienna. And it’s understood to refer to the measures aimed at preventing accidental or unintentional hazards to space systems. So to recap, space security deals more with those intentional threats or intentional harms, and then space safety deals with unintentional harms. And those unintentional harms could be anything from natural occurring hazards like solar flares or also human made, but as long as they are unintentional, they fall under the purview of Copios, whereas intentional threats fall under the purview of Paris. And to the second part of your question, what sort of governs space security? How do we control that space is being maintained as a secure environment? It’s interesting because even though the main space treaties that everybody in the room is probably familiar with, such as the Outer Space Treaty and the Subsequent Treaties, actually originated from security concerns during the Cold War. So essentially, states were afraid that the Cold War could extend to outer space because of certain weapons tests that were being conducted beyond the atmosphere. And that’s what prompted the international community to start negotiating the Outer Space Treaty. The text of the Outer Space Treaty and also the Subsequent International Treaties don’t really focus on space security issues. That being said, space security doesn’t actually exist in a legal vacuum. The Outer Space Treaty does provide a robust legal framework of principles that are relevant to space security concerns. Article 4 is an example of this, so the prohibition of the placement, installation or stationing of weapons of mass destruction in orbit, as well as the placement of any types of weapons in intellectual bodies. So that’s an example of that. Article 3 of the Outer Space Treaty also establishes the applicability of international law as a whole to the outer space environment. And this means also arms control treaties, general international laws such as international humanitarian law, law of the sea, air law, all of which are relevant to space security. So all of those apply to space as well. As well as multiple non-legally binding mechanisms such as expert control agreements like the Wassenaar Arrangement, the MTCR and other agreements like the H code of conduct are also relevant to space security. And then we also have the international community realising, OK, because we don’t have a specific treaty or a specific mechanism that deals explicitly with space security, we really want to focus on that in our multi-stakeholder approach. That’s why Paros, the prevention of an armistice in outer space, was born as an agenda item within the United Nations. And in this context of Paros discussions, multiple initiatives have been brought forward, both legally binding treaties as well as non-legally binding mechanisms, a draft treaty on the prohibition of the placement of weapons, as well as the threats and the use of force in outer space, which was proposed by Russia and China a few years ago. And it’s recently brought back as an example of what a legally binding document on space security could look like. There’s also been multiple groups of governmental experts that have recommended the implementation of transparency and confidence building measures for space security. Also you mentioned when you introduced me, Alexandra, the open-ended working group on reducing threats to space that systems through norms, rules and principles are responsible behaviours. So those are proposals of non-legally binding mechanisms to ensure space security. So even though we don’t yet have a concrete treaty on space security issues, there has been multiple conversations and there continue to be multiple conversations about this topic. So this really highlights the importance that states place on space security precisely because of all those reasons that you were mentioning during your introduction, how essential space infrastructure is for humanity and humankind’s daily lives. So we do try to address it at the multilateral level and even at the domestic level or regional level as well. States are also establishing their own doctrines, their own strategies to ensure that space is kept as a secure and peaceful domain. I could say a lot more, but I’m going to leave it at that. I’ll be very interested to hear what the rest of the panellists have to say and eager to continue the conversation. of this discussion. Thank you very much.

Alexandre Vallet: Thank you very much, Sharmilina. And yes, we will discuss more about the future of space security as well in the second part of the panel. Following your presentation and your explanation, I think we have now understood how obviously space security is a key element for ensuring stable operations in space. But this is also true from good legal frameworks. So we can say that for good legal frameworks for space activities. And this is why I would like now to turn to Ingo Bergman to give us an explanation more of more practitioner aspects. And could you explain to us what a space lawyer is doing specifically on a more routine basis, not only the dealing with treaties. And in particular, could you give us some example of your roles and actions, the role of an action of a space lawyer in the development and deployment of a satellite project?

Ingo Baumann: Yeah, good morning, everybody. Alexandra, many thanks for having me. It’s great to be here. Yeah, space lawyer from a law firm point of view, it’s still, it’s let’s say a bit unusual compared to other law firms, et cetera. It’s a lot of academic, a lot of academic activities. Book chapters, book publications, articles, conference panels like today and so on. So that makes a big part. Otherwise, I would say it’s mostly three areas. One is more study consultancy work for governments or governmental agencies. And in our European case, also of course the EU bodies on national space legislation, either for developing it for the first time or reviewing, modernizing, amending them. the development of national industry and technology progress and so on. So we do quite a lot of larger, longer projects for governments, mostly on Europe, but also increasingly in other areas, the Arabian countries, for example, advising on how to establish national space law, or how to solve certain specific legal issues linked to national space programs. That is also an area, and that leads to the second part, is let’s say public procurement of space systems, space services, and you name it, whereby this is split sometimes, and still the majority we work also for governmental agencies to assist in preparation and conduction of public procurement, but it can also be on the commercial side to help to review the conditions, to make sound offers, to do negotiations, and also then the contract management. And the last part is then really commercial, so all the type of, let’s say, contractual arrangements between commercial space companies, starting from NDA up to, let’s say, ordering a whole bunch of satellites or launch service agreements, space insurance contracts, hosted payload, or also looking into new applications like reentry vehicles or in-space manufacturing and on-orbit services, different terminologies here, ISOM, ISOS, and so on. So these are the main areas. Looking to national space law, of course, we have an increasing number of countries with national space law. I think it’s now more than 50 already and constantly increasing within Europe, 27 member states. We have 13 countries, so almost half with national space laws, but many others are working on them. And those with older space laws are also either having already concluded processes of modernizing or in the process of modernizing. So that is worldwide. It’s, of course, a strong and ongoing activity. And what we see here, what I always say also in my more academic works, you can, even if it’s overlapping and so on, but you can have that in phases. The first phase of national space laws was really purely looking to the international law, the treaties, the obligations of states under the treaties and how to implement them. So these national space laws tend to be rather international law focused and rather short. Then we had a whole wave of national space laws surrounding university projects, first spin off, first small companies in a country. So we have, especially in Europe, we have a whole series of national space laws which were built in this 2005, 2012 area. Then the third and still ongoing phase is now really looking into national competitiveness. How can we foster the national ecosystem? How can we support startups, job creation? International competitiveness, both on national as in the industrial level. So the perspective on national space law has changed quite a lot. And now, since a few days, we have something even more new on the table, which is the first proposal for a regional or supranational space law. Many of you may have heard that the European Commission has made a legislative proposal for an EU Space Act. This will be a longer process, but if adopted, we will be able to implement it. would have a first set of a harmonized framework for a whole group of countries and that can, of course, over time also become a good example for other regions. I would mainly think of Africa, but also in Asia, South America. So if it works well in Europe over time, over longer periods, it might be a starting point for this new development. SDG, of course, we see in national space laws, we see a focus on space safety beyond the international obligations of authorization, supervision, liability, registration. This is the core to ensure that also non-governmental activities are safe and over the years, and all of you know it, the international developments of guidelines and technical standards on space debris, mitigation, et cetera, et cetera, but also other methods, they flow also into national space law and become then also binding through the law or through licensing conditions. However, let’s say SDG, so more what’s happening on Earth, typically is not an aspect which is treated under national space laws.

Alexandre Vallet: Thank you very much, Ingo. So as you have noted, the first speakers, the first two speakers, addressed the frameworks necessary to set up a flourishing space ecosystem. I will now turn to a more operational side and introduce you with two examples of innovative actors of this ecosystem. So I will start with Kineis. Bruno, could you… briefly introduce your company, but also the service you are offering and explain how can this service be used to assist in achieving some of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Bruno Bechard: Thank you. Yes, of course, and with pleasure. Thank you, Alexandre, for this invitation. Good morning to everyone. Just to a short presentation of Kinesio, as you told, it’s a nanosat constellation based on 25 nanosatellites flying at 650 kilometers with 20 ground stations around the globe. Kinesio is proposing services, as you said, also IoT services, Internet of Things services based on low power consumption for the devices. Also some localization services and also AIS, Automatic Identification System, for maritime traffic management. So Kinesio has launched its satellites between mid-2024 and March 2025, and right now we are operating services since June. What is interesting also to say is that Kinesio is the heiress of the Argo system that was built 40 years ago and operating, and that is well known for environmental and localization services. So Kinesio constellation upgraded Argo system by a factor of 100. We can allow a factor of 100 more devices on the network. So the services are open, and just to give you some good assets of those. what’s going on right now you know 85% of the earth is not covered but by terrestrial network and the way that we are providing you know services is through this space iot and for the sdg for example we are partnering also with uh with some companies to offer uh i would highlight some some some use cases but for example right now we are with our partner and shareholder cls we are providing some wildlife tracking and also some maritime or fishing monitoring to have a sustainable resources management and also for wildlife to what is interesting it’s not only wildlife tracking and protecting wildlife but it’s also being able to monitor uh some oceanographics parameters or meteorological parameters because you know they are when they are on the on the turtle for example you can monitor many things um all the partnership or other use cases that we are providing are related for example for uh while um for fires and uh fire alerting so we are developing use cases with uh and of course we alert and then protect the forest and uh and by a third uh use case is what we are doing with uh our partners also carling and europort we are following wagons for example and with that innovating for supply chains for optimizing optimization and uh and uh and also the the order the the monitoring that can be done and reducing the costs through this supply chain management. So we are delivering all kinds of service on monitoring, alerting, and tracking on different domains, environmental domains, agriculture, energy, transport, or infrastructure. And we can provide many, many use cases around this. You can imagine water quality or whatever. So this is really interesting. And of course, I think it helps all the SDGs. And it can help all the SDGs in that respect.

Alexandre Vallet: Thanks a lot, Bruno. And thanks, indeed, for giving us some concrete example of services that, indeed, are directly related to some of the SDGs, and for which your services can, indeed, increase or improve, I would say, the quality of monitoring of data collection. Thank you very much. I will now introduce another type of innovative space actor, not providing communications, but making sure that many different missions can go to space. So Chloe, could you introduce Ridespace? And what kind of service do you offer? What types of customers are your main target? And could you explain, in particular, why your offer is different from traditional launch offerings?

Chloe Saboye Pasquier: Yes, thank you very much for having me today. And good morning, everyone. So RIDE is a launch solution broker, which means that we put in relation towards the satellite operator, manufacturer, with the launch provider, and allow them to find the best solution to reach their orbits, depending on the mission constraints. So we are definitely born from the democratization of space. With more launch vehicle solution, it’s, again, a little bit difficult. for some of our customers to find the remaining capacity on the launch vehicle to also find what are the best solution maybe to launch a constellation because we could align to different launch solutions in different countries. The other aspect is that we also support our customer to be able to comply with all the regulation of each launch vehicle, but also each national regulation based on where the launch vehicle take off and also based on where our satellite operator is. So we are doing the link between those two words with different launch vehicle from the USA, Europe, India, but also China, and with a various range of customer. So we have a satellite CubeSat for one kilo and big companies with more than 250 kilogram satellites. So we also see the full range of applications which fall under a different regulation each time. So if we have to differentiate our customer, I would say we can separate them in three different type. We can separate them in newcomers in country having space loads or having regulations. So that would mean startup, that would mean maybe university centers as well or research centers that just want to launch a satellite, but they may not be completely familiar with ecosystems in their own countries and internationally. We also have the second type of customer which are the multi launches constellation planning. So basically those are usually companies with more advance and are looking for solutions to be able to launch multiple satellites on the very specific set of time with specific orbits. So we try to find the best solution combining different launch vehicles. also OCD, or space tax, and everything that is possible in terms of innovations. This can be used, for example, for all the new PNT constellations that are currently in development. And the final one would be to support projects from countries not having any space program. This one is actually a little bit tricky because we may, in some cases, even have to develop with the company or even with the country, some set of regulations, some constraints to be able to comply with international regulation, or at least with the launch vehicle we will launch with. So we are sure that the satellite will respect all the regulations. So this one is mostly the case for countries such as Nepal or Mexico, for example, that we are currently working on. So in this aspect, we have been able to manage the first completely private launch mission between China and foreign countries. So basically exporting a satellite from Europe to China. So also with the importation and all the regulation, the radio frequency that is going on with the specific regulation in China, and be able to comply with all the foreign and international aspects. So in this case, it’s a little bit similar to what Dr. Bowen was saying. We also have a very set part of our activity, which is based in knowledge sharing, being able to advise our clients to what is possible and what is not possible for the mission, not only in terms of technical aspects, because it’s actually quite easy to say that a launch vehicle will be able to launch a very heavy satellite. It’s easy. We just have a look at what are the capabilities. But when we have to look at all the aspects about transportation, export control. radio frequency registrations, and all that is feasible around the mission, this is where we can actually support our clients and coordinate the mission so they are able to successfully launch the satellite on time with all the licenses and certificates that are required for the missions.

Alexandre Vallet: Thank you very much and thank you for offering to us these insights into indeed the new ways of procuring launches. So this first round of questions, as you may have noted, allowed us to better understand the current set of play. So I would like now to pivot to the future and discuss what is currently missing for really leveraging a true space ecosystem and how we could fix what is missing or we could complete that. I will choose a different order of speakers for the first questions and I will start the second one with Bruno. For your company, what are the main obstacles to the pervasive use of your technology all over the world and how do you think these obstacles could be overcome in the next years?

Bruno Bechard: Thank you, Alexandre. I would say that a lot of work has been done on the broadband, as you mentioned at the beginning for your introduction. So a legal framework are there, but for narrowband, like we do for IoT, for example, where we are exchanging very small messages on a few kilohertz, I would say we would need some appropriate regulation and a legal framework and also appropriate license conditions. We’ve got, for example, 20 ground stations, but we cannot multiply them in each country, for example, and definitely our system. is not based for this. So this could be harder. Same for the regulation fees. We can have some issues if we are compared to the broadband service providers because our business case is definitely not the same and we cannot afford some huge regulation fees. So I would say that yes, we need such legal framework to unlock access to the markets. And yes, this could be a good tool. Also, especially for Kinase, but I think for other new space suppliers, we need some information, trainings and also help in terms of building programs because we need to build some ecosystems. And for our example, if our technologies, if we can have some trainings on our technologies, of course, it would unlock the ecosystem so that for a university or whatever would be able to develop upon all our new space technologies. So yes, being more known and so that partners can also recruit and develop on these domains. And of course, as I said, also building programs, because as we say, we can build some use case, we can replicate them. And definitely, for example, if we are developing a solution for flood detection, we can duplicate it in many countries later on. So I would say that could be. this kind of ideas to unlock the access. Thank you.

Alexandre Vallet: Thank you very much. Quite clear. Let me move to Chloé. As you explained, right space is seeing a lot of market potential in new commerce, new companies in, I would say, space-faring nations. But also, new countries that want to enter the space race. And for that, what, in your view, are the main barriers that prevented your services to be accessible by these customers? And how have you managed to overcome this barrier? And what, in your view, are the most pressing challenges for the next years in order to, I would say, improve access to space?

Chloe Saboye Pasquier: Yes. So effectively, we have had some issue, not really for the access of our services, as we are actually a broker. So we put in relation the two words. But we have seen some of our clients not be able actually to launch or to just do their mission as they want it, or at least in the timeline due to all the external factors. So it’s actually today quite easy, if I may say, of course, to buy a satellite platform for a small satellite. We have the possibility of buying a lot of components that are already being used and provided in space. So the actual manufacturing, proper manufacturing, has been defined, a lot of hand works, and can be followed by our clients, which is actually not the most complicated aspect of the launch mission. What we can see is all the overall associated services. to be able to test, to be able to transport, to be able to register the radio frequencies. All of those are actually some of the issue and barrier that our client can face, because either they don’t have the knowledge, the how to know how to do it, or they are blocked in their own country. So this is what we mostly face for the radio frequency registrations for satellite, especially when we are in country without a space agency, because the entity responsible for the communication, for the registration, they sometimes are not trained to register satellites. So the delay for the management of the license can vary from country to country, but sometimes we can just get to four or six months just to get the APAA, for example, which in terms of space or small mission is quite a huge timeline. So this is definitely something that we need to take care of first thing when we have a client coming from a country without space agency. And the second one that we may fear, not today, but maybe tomorrow, is actually the democratization and also the increase in space regulation, which is of course very good. But what we need to be careful is that all of them can comply and recognize each other, because if we have different satellites, we have to imagine the worst case scenario for us would be to have a satellite for one country launching on a launch vehicle for another country, but actually this launch vehicle use a launch site from a third country. So basically we would be under three different national registration in addition to all the international or regional. les institutions. So we have to be very careful that all of them can recognize or compliant with each other in these regulations. So this has been the case for some specific examples. So in France, the French law is actually recognized by New Zealand or by China, which is actually very helpful for us. And this is something we will need in the future so that our mission can be done easier for all the different newcomers and also the country already having a set of regulations. And finally, if I go a little bit in the radio frequency, because this is also the panel of today, for this specific aspect, we have different topics. We have for the newcomers or for people wanting to do some research or just demonstration in orbit. So they only need to use a radio frequency band for a few months or a year. Sometimes it’s very difficult for them to get the allocation for the specific frequency bands, or it would seem to us actually easier to rent, if possible, an available radio frequency band, because we know that some people register them in advance, they don’t use them, so why not share them? But the issue is that we don’t know, we don’t have a database to find the people who would actually accept to rent or to share the frequency band for the clients. So that’s one of the points. And the second that we can foresee in the future, actually very new, is a D-to-D, direct-to-device services. So basically the satellite not needing any ground station, but using the other constellation, because today we have those constellations. that are growing, that are developing, and that actually can provide the services of getting the data back to Earth. So our satellite would only need to communicate with this constellation without the need for registration, sorry, with a ground station. This has been done for re-entry capsule, but it’s not done yet for satellite in orbit. And that could actually be a good solution first to be able to access multiple ground station, but also to help our small newcomers that don’t need a lot of ground station, don’t need a lot of data, to be able just to get back for a few months the data for their research.

Alexandre Vallet: Thank you very much. This is a very rich set of issues that in fact should be addressable in the coming years. So this is very interesting, particularly I like your point on the need for consistency across national law and also between national law and international law. This kind of consistency generally easier to obtain the consistency across international law is something that is indeed challenging and that probably should be the focus on further efforts in the years to come. Ingo, since we are discussing about these issues of consistencies between national laws and the also consistency with international law, in view, in your view as a practitioner in space law, what topics or issues are currently missing in, well, that are currently missing in space laws should be the lawmakers’ and regulators’ priority for the next years?

Ingo Baumann: Alexander, that’s of course is a great question. I think it’s not only one and many things are already ongoing. We heard from Al Mudena, of course, the whole issue of space security. We mentioned space safety and here, of course, we all know more and more objects, more and more collision risks, more and more space debris, but all this is already ongoing. I wouldn’t choose any one of these to be the top priority. They are all priorities. Of course, then this comes together under the overarching term of space traffic management, where also we just had new developments in Corpus. There’s also lots of talks ongoing in diverse bodies and fora, but it’s, of course, extremely difficult. What Chloe very nicely said, the disparity of frameworks, also, let’s say the lack of effective communication channels and contacts between national regulators is certainly an issue. Let’s say the need for mutual recognition in one way or the other, more formal or less formal is certainly also an issue. When I was a bit younger, my PhD topic 25 years ago was on the privatization of the then intergovernmental satellite organizations. What I often reflect is, let’s say, is that really so outdated? Of course, it’s outdated for SATCOM because the international organizations at the time, over three decades, four decades, they allowed, let’s say development of the technology, development of public investment and so on up to a point where privatization, commercialization was feasible. But we have other areas of space technologies and space applications which today are in the starting point where SATCOM was in the late 60s when InterSat was founded or in the early 70s when we saw Inmarsat and UterSat and so on. So of course it’s very difficult to establish an international organization or to come to an international agreement as we also saw it for the ISS. But if I see certain challenges in the broad range of the SDG, climate, fire, disasters and so on and so on, I think we should not totally ignore this old model and sometimes and we also said yes democratization, commercialization, the progress of technology that makes many things easier but we also have counter effects. It means that we have a lot of let’s say systems but somehow let’s say well own national or own commercial initiatives and then for commercial initiatives with all the problems of getting the right investment, making the progress, launching the system etc. etc. If we would bring maybe a bit more of international collaboration and mechanisms to that sometimes we may be faster to really find stable solutions for the problems we are looking to.

Alexandre Vallet: Thank you very much and this is quite interesting to see your reference to this model of international organization because at least in ITU we see some countries in for example, in Africa, thinking about this model also to start their activities in space by joining together and pooling resources in order to be able to have a real first concrete step in space, which probably individually they could not. As you said, this is very, there is a very good parallel with what happened in the 80s and the 70s and 80s on that aspect. That’s so we should not forget this. Finally, back to the opening speaker and the opening topic, Almudena, in your view, what are the most urgent challenges in terms of space security that have now to be addressed? So not necessarily, I don’t ask for a ranking, but maybe the main topics that is now that needs to be addressed in the coming years.

Almudena Azcarate Ortega: Thank you, thank you very much, Alessandro. I think, you know, we could be here all day talking about this is such a complex question, but for the sake of time, I will resist the urge to go on and on about the challenges that exist. I think, first of all, it really depends on who you ask, because obviously states have different priorities, different interests and different objectives when it comes to space operations. So that also contributes to determining what they consider the main challenges or the most urgent challenges. But what we hear about the most in multilateral discussions, and I think some of the things have been mentioned just now by Inga, for example, the whole space debris issue. We hear a lot about the dangers that the development, the testing and the use of counter space capabilities pose. and cancer-based capabilities come in many shapes and forms. They can be kinetic, they can be non-kinetic, like for example, high-powered microwaves, electromagnetic pulses, they can be electronic, and this is particularly important for telecommunications. So they can be jammers or spoofers that affect communications, that cause harmful interference, which is something that’s mentioned explicitly in the Outer Space Treaty, not prohibited in the Outer Space Treaty, although it is prohibited by the ITU rules, but it is mentioned there as something that’s undesirable in the Outer Space Treaty. And then also cyber cancer-based capabilities, which have gained a lot of importance in recent years, particularly due to their use in currently ongoing armed conflict on Earth. And all of these cancer-based capabilities can target any of the segments of a space system, so the ground segment, the space segment, or the data links in between. So there is a lot of conversation going on about them, not just due to the danger that they pose to the space environment itself, but also to the danger that they pose to Earth. So the disabling, the destruction of these space technologies even the temporary interference with the services that these space systems provide can be devastating for Earth, and states and stakeholders in general are becoming increasingly aware of this. So cancer-based capabilities is something that’s definitely a big concern. Then we talked a little bit, Chloe was the one that mentioned it, how do we understand laws? international, national, regional. And I think this goes into another concern that’s very important for security, which is the lack of common understanding that exists, not just necessarily limited to legal interpretation of principles or regulation, but also at the most basic level, the interpretation of terminology. So we often use the same terms when it comes to space security discussions, but states will often mean different things. And these different interpretations, they can be due to many reasons. They can be due to cultural backgrounds, to legal backgrounds. So whether a country has a civil law or a common law background can affect how they interpret different concepts. It can be due to political interests, of course, but the end of the matter is that we use the same terms, but sometimes we mean very different things. So that means that the result of this means that when we sit down to negotiate potential mechanisms to address space security concerns, it’s very difficult to reach consensus because we have different understanding of what these terms actually mean. And space security itself is a good example of this, especially if you consider that at the multilateral level, we speak multiple languages. And there are certain languages where the difference between space security and space safety that I was talking at the beginning actually doesn’t exist. So in Spanish, for example, the same word is used for both security and safety. And so that multilingual aspect of multilateral discussions adds another layer of complexity. But then when it comes to the lack of common understanding related to that is the lack of transparency that we sometimes see when it comes to activities in space or when it comes to the disclosure of space policy doctrines or strategies. I think there’s. improving, I think states are increasingly disclosing their space security strategies, which is seen as a good transparency and confidence building measure. But the other side of that coin is that sometimes it can, so when a state releases their space security strategy, another state, for example, an adversary of that state that has released their space security strategy might perceive that strategy as some form of thing that they have to be concerned about as a threat, especially depending on how the language is used there, the choice of words that is used in that strategy. And so the use of language, again, is something that has to be considered really carefully in these multilateral discussions. Ultimately, to wrap things up, I would say that space security is influenced by the geopolitical climate that we have on Earth. So a lot of the challenges that we see in space security are not isolated, something that’s very far away, you know, beyond the atmosphere, that don’t really concern what’s happening on Earth. That’s definitely not the case. The more tense that relations are on Earth, the more tense, or the more lack of trust that we will see when it comes to space activities. And so working towards achieving greater transparency, communication, all of those things that other panelists talked about, not just in the context of space, but also in the context of earthly relations, can actually really help mitigate potential threats and challenges that are perceived in space as well. So I will leave it at that. I don’t know if we have time for questions, but if we do, I would be very happy to to answer any. Yeah, thank you very much.

Alexandre Vallet: And thank you for highlighting this point about terminology, which is indeed an essential issue. especially in multilateral discussions. Maybe if you could just, I know that UNIDIR has produced a lexicon, a glossary of terms to try to start to address this issue. So maybe if you can, in one minute, mention and explain what it is and where you can, our audience can find it if they are interested.

Almudena Azcarate Ortega: Absolutely. And thank you so much for mentioning that. We are very proud of this lexicon. This lexicon came about precisely because we’ve realized this issue of different stakeholders using the same terms, but oftentimes meaning different things. So the space security lexicon has its own website now, which we recently launched this year. And so it can be found at spacesecuritylexicon.org. And it is essentially a compilation of commonly used terms in space security discourse. Some of them, there is more clarity or more common understanding around their meaning. So it’s just essentially brief definitions of what those same terms are. But there are, again, other times where there is different interpretations. And so we don’t seek to provide what the definition for these terms should be, but rather we seek to highlight these interpretive differences that can come out of the use of these terms. So that when states and other stakeholders sit down to talk about space security issues, they have a resource that they can go to and understand a little bit more what those different interpretations can be. This tool is available in all six official languages. So it’s not translations of each other, but rather different versions, because we do look at the different issues that come up in different languages. So for example, when it comes to the term space security, that I mentioned, and how certain languages don’t have different. different terms for space security and space safety, such as is the case with Spanish. We maybe talk a little bit more in depth about this issue in the Spanish version of the lexicon than we do in the English version. And in French, for example, we have this issue where space security is translated by surte spatial instead of securite spatial. So we talk a little bit about why that is and how different French speaking countries talk about space security. And yeah, we hope that this tool can contribute to creating a little bit more of common understanding. And in that sense, it’s a little bit of a transparency and confidence building measure that can help move space security discussions forward. Over back to you.

Alexandre Vallet: Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. I see now that time is running up. So we don’t really have time for questions, sorry. So I hope that the audience has learned a good deal about the future of space systems and technologies that in our view, at least will play a role to support the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goal in the next years, hopefully to meet some of the Sustainable Goals by 2030. This is, as you know, we are late in meeting the goals, but probably 2030 should not be seen as the end, but should be also seen as a milestone that could allow us to move forward. At the time of closing, I would like to thank our four panelists for their insights on the topic. Thank you very much. This meeting has been recorded. It will be put also online on the YCIS website. Thank you all for having attended the session and have a good rest of the day. And for those… are going back to their countries after this day of crisis, have a safe trip back. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Need for appropriate regulatory frameworks tailored to different space services

Speakers

– Bruno Bechard
– Chloe Saboye Pasquier
– Ingo Baumann

Arguments

Narrowband IoT services need appropriate regulatory frameworks and licensing conditions different from broadband services, with affordable fees for smaller business cases

Radio frequency registration delays of 4-6 months in countries without space agencies create significant barriers for small satellite missions

National space laws have evolved through three phases: international law implementation, university/startup support, and national competitiveness enhancement

Summary

All three speakers agree that current regulatory frameworks are inadequate for the diverse needs of modern space services, with Bruno highlighting the need for IoT-specific regulations, Chloe pointing to registration delays, and Ingo describing the evolution toward more tailored national frameworks

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Importance of international consistency and coordination in space governance

Speakers

– Chloe Saboye Pasquier
– Ingo Baumann
– Almudena Azcarate Ortega

Arguments

Need for consistency and mutual recognition between different national space regulations to enable multi-jurisdictional missions

The proposed EU Space Act represents the first supranational space law framework that could serve as a model for other regions

Lack of common understanding of terminology across different languages and legal systems creates barriers in multilateral space security negotiations

Summary

All speakers recognize the critical need for harmonized international approaches, whether through mutual recognition of national laws, supranational frameworks, or common terminology in multilateral discussions

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Space technologies enable comprehensive solutions for sustainable development beyond traditional connectivity

Speakers

– Alexandre Vallet
– Bruno Bechard

Arguments

Growing space ecosystems require comprehensive frameworks addressing both technical capabilities and sustainable development applications

Space IoT services enable monitoring and tracking across 85% of Earth not covered by terrestrial networks, supporting wildlife protection, fire detection, and supply chain optimization

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that modern space technologies offer much broader applications for sustainable development than just connectivity, requiring comprehensive approaches to harness their full potential

Topics

Development | Sustainable development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for knowledge sharing and ecosystem building to support newcomers and smaller players in the space industry, whether through training programs or regulatory guidance services

Speakers

– Bruno Bechard
– Chloe Saboye Pasquier

Arguments

Building ecosystems requires training programs and information sharing to help universities and partners develop applications using new space technologies

Launch brokerage services address the complexity of multi-national regulations when satellites, launch vehicles, and launch sites involve different countries

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers advocate for enhanced international cooperation and coordination, with Ingo suggesting historical models and Almudena emphasizing the need for transparency and communication to address security challenges

Speakers

– Ingo Baumann
– Almudena Azcarate Ortega

Arguments

International collaboration models from satellite organizations of the 1970s-80s could be relevant for addressing current global challenges like climate and disasters

Space security challenges are directly influenced by geopolitical tensions on Earth, requiring coordinated transparency and communication efforts

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Cybersecurity

Unexpected consensus

Value of historical international space organization models for current challenges

Speakers

– Ingo Baumann
– Alexandre Vallet

Arguments

International collaboration models from satellite organizations of the 1970s-80s could be relevant for addressing current global challenges like climate and disasters

Growing space ecosystems require comprehensive frameworks addressing both technical capabilities and sustainable development applications

Explanation

It’s unexpected that both speakers would reference and validate older international cooperation models (like Intelsat, Inmarsat) as potentially relevant solutions for current space challenges, given the strong trend toward commercialization and privatization in the space sector

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Terminology and language barriers as fundamental obstacles to space governance

Speakers

– Almudena Azcarate Ortega
– Alexandre Vallet

Arguments

Lack of common understanding of terminology across different languages and legal systems creates barriers in multilateral space security negotiations

Growing space ecosystems require comprehensive frameworks addressing both technical capabilities and sustainable development applications

Explanation

The consensus on terminology being a fundamental barrier is unexpected because it highlights that even basic communication challenges remain unresolved in space governance, despite decades of international space cooperation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the need for more sophisticated, tailored regulatory frameworks that can accommodate the diversity of modern space services while ensuring international coordination and consistency. There is also agreement on the broader potential of space technologies for sustainable development beyond traditional connectivity applications.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for space governance – all speakers recognize that current frameworks are inadequate for the rapidly evolving space ecosystem and that solutions require both technical innovation and comprehensive international cooperation. The consensus suggests a clear path forward involving regulatory modernization, international harmonization, and ecosystem building to fully leverage space technologies for global challenges.

Different viewpoints

Approach to regulatory framework development – international cooperation vs. national competitiveness

Speakers

– Ingo Baumann
– Bruno Bechard
– Chloe Saboye Pasquier

Arguments

International collaboration models from satellite organizations of the 1970s-80s could be relevant for addressing current global challenges like climate and disasters

Narrowband IoT services need appropriate regulatory frameworks and licensing conditions different from broadband services, with affordable fees for smaller business cases

Need for consistency and mutual recognition between different national space regulations to enable multi-jurisdictional missions

Summary

Ingo advocates for reviving international organizational models for global challenges, while Bruno focuses on adapting existing frameworks for specific service types, and Chloe emphasizes the need for regulatory harmonization across jurisdictions. They represent different philosophical approaches to regulatory development.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Role of frequency spectrum sharing and allocation efficiency

Speakers

– Bruno Bechard
– Chloe Saboye Pasquier

Arguments

Narrowband IoT services need appropriate regulatory frameworks and licensing conditions different from broadband services, with affordable fees for smaller business cases

Lack of database for sharing unused radio frequency allocations prevents efficient spectrum utilization for short-term research and demonstration missions

Explanation

While both speakers address frequency allocation challenges, they focus on completely different aspects. Bruno emphasizes the need for different regulatory treatment based on service type, while Chloe identifies the inefficiency of unused spectrum not being available for sharing. This represents an unexpected divergence in how they view spectrum management solutions.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers show remarkable consensus on identifying problems but differ significantly in their proposed solutions. Main disagreements center on regulatory approaches (international cooperation vs. national adaptation vs. harmonization) and spectrum management strategies.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers are largely complementary rather than contradictory, representing different perspectives within the same ecosystem. Their disagreements reflect different professional backgrounds and operational focuses rather than fundamental conflicts. This suggests a healthy diversity of approaches that could be integrated rather than competing solutions that must be chosen between.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for knowledge sharing and ecosystem building to support newcomers and smaller players in the space industry, whether through training programs or regulatory guidance services

Speakers

– Bruno Bechard
– Chloe Saboye Pasquier

Arguments

Building ecosystems requires training programs and information sharing to help universities and partners develop applications using new space technologies

Launch brokerage services address the complexity of multi-national regulations when satellites, launch vehicles, and launch sites involve different countries

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers advocate for enhanced international cooperation and coordination, with Ingo suggesting historical models and Almudena emphasizing the need for transparency and communication to address security challenges

Speakers

– Ingo Baumann
– Almudena Azcarate Ortega

Arguments

International collaboration models from satellite organizations of the 1970s-80s could be relevant for addressing current global challenges like climate and disasters

Space security challenges are directly influenced by geopolitical tensions on Earth, requiring coordinated transparency and communication efforts

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Cybersecurity

Key takeaways

Space security and space safety are distinct concepts – security addresses intentional threats while safety handles unintentional hazards to space systems

Current space governance relies on Outer Space Treaty principles and non-binding mechanisms, but lacks specific comprehensive space security treaties

National space laws have evolved through three phases: international law implementation, startup support, and national competitiveness enhancement

The proposed EU Space Act represents the first supranational space law framework that could serve as a model for other regions

Space IoT services can cover 85% of Earth not served by terrestrial networks, enabling applications for wildlife tracking, fire detection, and supply chain optimization

Launch brokerage services are emerging to help navigate complex multi-jurisdictional regulatory requirements for satellite missions

Terminology differences across languages and legal systems create significant barriers in multilateral space security negotiations

Space security challenges are directly influenced by geopolitical tensions on Earth, requiring coordinated transparency and communication efforts

Growing space ecosystems require comprehensive frameworks that address both technical capabilities and sustainable development applications

Resolutions and action items

UNIDIR has developed a space security lexicon available at spacesecuritylexicon.org in six official languages to address terminology confusion

The session recording will be made available online on the YCIS website for broader access

Continued multilateral discussions through UN bodies on space security frameworks and mechanisms

Unresolved issues

Lack of appropriate regulatory frameworks and licensing conditions for narrowband IoT services compared to broadband

Radio frequency registration delays of 4-6 months in countries without space agencies creating mission barriers

Absence of database for sharing unused radio frequency allocations for short-term research missions

Need for consistency and mutual recognition between different national space regulations

Challenges in developing direct-to-device satellite services using constellation-to-constellation communication

Space traffic management and debris mitigation requiring coordinated international action

Counter-space capabilities threats including kinetic, non-kinetic, electronic, and cyber attacks on space systems

Lack of common understanding of space security terminology across different stakeholders and languages

Suggested compromises

International collaboration models from 1970s-80s satellite organizations could be adapted for current global challenges like climate and disasters

Building ecosystems through training programs and information sharing to help universities and partners develop new space technology applications

Developing rental or sharing mechanisms for radio frequency bands to help newcomers access spectrum for short-term missions

Creating more formal or informal mutual recognition frameworks between national space regulators

Establishing better communication channels and contacts between national regulators to address regulatory disparities

Space security deals more with those intentional threats or intentional harms, and then space safety deals with unintentional harms… Space security doesn’t actually exist in a legal vacuum. The Outer Space Treaty does provide a robust legal framework of principles that are relevant to space security concerns.

Speaker

Almudena Azcarate Ortega

Reason

This comment was insightful because it provided crucial conceptual clarity by distinguishing between space security (intentional threats) and space safety (unintentional hazards), while also establishing that existing legal frameworks do provide some foundation for space security governance. This distinction is fundamental to understanding the regulatory landscape.

Impact

This comment established the foundational framework for the entire discussion, providing the conceptual vocabulary that other panelists could build upon. It shifted the conversation from abstract concerns about space governance to concrete categories of threats and existing legal mechanisms.

The perspective on national space law has changed quite a lot… The first phase of national space laws was really purely looking to the international law… Then we had a whole wave of national space laws surrounding university projects… Then the third and still ongoing phase is now really looking into national competitiveness.

Speaker

Ingo Baumann

Reason

This evolutionary framework for understanding national space law development was particularly insightful because it revealed how space governance has matured from compliance-focused to innovation and competitiveness-focused, showing the dynamic nature of space law adaptation.

Impact

This comment introduced a historical perspective that contextualized current challenges and suggested future directions. It helped frame the discussion around the evolution of space governance rather than just current static challenges.

We have different satellites, we have to imagine the worst case scenario for us would be to have a satellite for one country launching on a launch vehicle for another country, but actually this launch vehicle use a launch site from a third country. So basically we would be under three different national registration in addition to all the international or regional institutions.

Speaker

Chloe Saboye Pasquier

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it illustrated the practical complexity of multi-jurisdictional space operations with a concrete scenario that highlighted how the democratization of space access creates unprecedented regulatory challenges.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from theoretical legal frameworks to practical operational challenges, demonstrating how the new space economy creates regulatory complexity that existing frameworks weren’t designed to handle. It prompted discussion about the need for regulatory harmonization.

Space security is influenced by the geopolitical climate that we have on Earth… The more tense that relations are on Earth, the more tense, or the more lack of trust that we will see when it comes to space activities.

Speaker

Almudena Azcarate Ortega

Reason

This observation was particularly insightful because it connected terrestrial geopolitics to space security, challenging any notion that space can be treated as a separate domain from earthly conflicts and tensions.

Impact

This comment broadened the scope of the discussion beyond technical and legal solutions to include geopolitical considerations, suggesting that space security cannot be solved in isolation from broader international relations.

If we would bring maybe a bit more of international collaboration and mechanisms to that sometimes we may be faster to really find stable solutions for the problems we are looking to… we should not totally ignore this old model [of international organizations]

Speaker

Ingo Baumann

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it challenged the prevailing narrative of space commercialization and democratization by suggesting that older models of international cooperation might still be relevant for addressing current challenges.

Impact

This comment introduced a counter-narrative to the dominant theme of privatization and national competition, suggesting that some challenges might require collective international approaches rather than purely market-driven solutions.

We often use the same terms when it comes to space security discussions, but states will often mean different things… in Spanish, for example, the same word is used for both security and safety.

Speaker

Almudena Azcarate Ortega

Reason

This insight about linguistic and conceptual barriers in multilateral discussions was particularly valuable because it identified a fundamental communication challenge that underlies many policy disagreements and negotiation difficulties.

Impact

This comment highlighted a meta-level challenge affecting all space governance discussions – the need for common terminology and understanding before substantive progress can be made on policy issues.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively shaped the discussion by establishing a multi-layered understanding of space governance challenges. The conversation evolved from basic definitional clarity (security vs. safety) to historical context (evolution of space law), practical operational challenges (multi-jurisdictional complexity), geopolitical realities (Earth-space connection), alternative governance models (international cooperation), and fundamental communication barriers (terminology issues). The comments created a comprehensive framework that moved beyond technical solutions to encompass legal, political, linguistic, and historical dimensions of space governance. This progression demonstrated that achieving sustainable space development requires addressing not just technological and regulatory challenges, but also fundamental issues of international cooperation, communication, and governance philosophy.

How can legal frameworks be better adapted for narrowband IoT services compared to broadband services, particularly regarding licensing conditions and regulation fees?

Speaker

Bruno Bechard

Explanation

Bruno highlighted that while broadband services have established legal frameworks, narrowband IoT services face challenges with inappropriate regulation and licensing conditions that don’t match their business model, creating barriers to market access.

How can consistency be achieved across different national space laws and between national and international space law?

Speaker

Chloe Saboye Pasquier and Alexandre Vallet

Explanation

Chloe raised concerns about satellites operating under multiple national jurisdictions, and Alexandre emphasized this as a challenging issue that should be the focus of further efforts in coming years.

How can a database or system be created to facilitate sharing or renting of unused radio frequency allocations for short-term research and demonstration missions?

Speaker

Chloe Saboye Pasquier

Explanation

Chloe identified that newcomers often need frequency bands for only a few months but face difficulties accessing them, while some registered frequencies remain unused, suggesting a need for a sharing mechanism.

What regulatory framework is needed for direct-to-device satellite services that communicate through other constellations without ground stations?

Speaker

Chloe Saboye Pasquier

Explanation

This represents an emerging technology area where satellites would communicate with existing constellations rather than ground stations, requiring new regulatory approaches.

Should the international organization model from the 1970s-80s be reconsidered for certain space applications, particularly for addressing SDG-related challenges?

Speaker

Ingo Baumann

Explanation

Ingo suggested that while this model is outdated for SATCOM, it might be relevant for newer space technologies that are at early development stages, potentially enabling faster solutions through international collaboration.

How can common understanding of space security terminology be improved across different languages and legal systems in multilateral discussions?

Speaker

Almudena Azcarate Ortega

Explanation

Almudena identified that the same terms often mean different things to different stakeholders due to cultural, legal, and linguistic differences, creating barriers to effective negotiation and consensus-building.

How can transparency in space activities and policy disclosure be balanced with security concerns to build confidence without creating new threats?

Speaker

Almudena Azcarate Ortega

Explanation

Almudena noted that while transparency is improving, disclosed space security strategies can sometimes be perceived as threats by other states, requiring careful consideration of language and approach.

What training and capacity building programs are needed to develop ecosystems around new space technologies?

Speaker

Bruno Bechard

Explanation

Bruno emphasized the need for information, training, and building programs to help universities and partners develop applications using new space technologies, which would unlock broader ecosystem development.

Summary

This discussion focused on AI solutions for creating an inclusive and beneficial digital economy, held as part of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2025. The session was moderated by Isabel de Sola from the UN Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies and featured speakers from various UN agencies and private sector organizations. The conversation began by acknowledging that while we are already living in a digital economy, it has not achieved the inclusive benefits originally envisioned 20 years ago when the WSIS framework was established.

Key challenges identified include a critical shortage of AI-skilled workers, with 85 million jobs potentially unfilled by 2030, lack of reliable data and infrastructure, and limited purchasing power for AI technologies among smaller businesses. Siyong Zou from UNIDO emphasized that AI transformation is inevitable, but the focus must be on ensuring it serves everyone, particularly those historically left behind by technological progress. Amandeep Singh Gill, the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy on Technology, highlighted how the Global Digital Compact places the inclusive digital economy at its center and stressed the importance of building comprehensive digital ecosystems rather than pursuing isolated AI solutions.

The session featured several concrete AI solution examples from around the world. These included CGI’s environmental monitoring system using satellite data and AI to predict water pollution, Beijing Institute of Technology’s AI Green Index for measuring sustainable AI practices, Zindi’s platform connecting 90,000 data scientists globally through competitive challenges, and humanitarian AI tools from Data Friendly Space that provide rapid crisis response analysis. Microsoft announced its new Elevate program, committing $4 billion over five years for AI education and technology donations, while NTT Data showcased AI applications for workplace safety and accessibility. The session concluded with the launch of a global call for solutions to foster digital inclusion, seeking innovative approaches to empower marginalized communities and build a more equitable digital economy.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Economy Inclusion Challenges**: The discussion highlighted significant barriers to an inclusive digital economy, including the fact that 80% of companies worldwide lack web pages, there’s a critical shortage of AI-qualified workers (85 million jobs may go unfilled by 2030), and persistent digital divides in infrastructure, data access, and purchasing power for AI technologies.

– **Global Digital Compact Framework**: The newly approved Global Digital Compact (September 2024) was presented as a key framework for addressing digital economy inclusion, with Objective 2 specifically focused on ensuring no worker, enterprise, or country is left behind in digital transformation.

– **AI Solutions Showcase**: Multiple organizations presented concrete AI solutions addressing various aspects of inclusion: environmental monitoring and pollution prediction (CGI), AI sustainability measurement (AI Green Index), youth skill development through competitions (Zindi), humanitarian crisis response (Data Friendly Space/AWS), and workforce empowerment across industries (NTT Data).

– **Ecosystem Approach to Digital Development**: Speakers emphasized that successful AI deployment requires building comprehensive digital ecosystems rather than isolated solutions, including digital public infrastructure, policy frameworks, skills development, and public-private partnerships.

– **Global Call for Solutions Launch**: The session concluded with the announcement of a new global initiative calling for innovative digital solutions to empower underserved communities, with applications open to innovators, entrepreneurs, and organizations worldwide.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to assess the current state of digital economy inclusion 20 years after the WSIS framework, identify barriers preventing equitable access to AI and digital technologies, showcase practical AI solutions addressing these challenges, and launch a global call for innovative solutions to foster a more inclusive digital economy aligned with the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently optimistic and action-oriented tone throughout. While speakers acknowledged serious challenges and the widening digital divide, the emphasis remained on solutions, collaboration, and concrete examples of successful AI implementations. The tone was professional yet energetic (as noted by the moderator’s reference to “high energy” style), with speakers demonstrating enthusiasm for their initiatives and a shared commitment to leaving no one behind in the digital transformation. The announcement of the global call for solutions at the end reinforced the forward-looking, collaborative spirit of the entire session.

Speakers

– **Isabel de Sola** – UN Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies, Moderator

– **Ciyong Zou** – Deputy to the Director General of UNIDO

– **Amandeep Singh Gill** – UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy on Technology

– **Mattie Yeta** – CGI (UK), presented via video

– **LIU Hao** – Beijing Institute of Technology (BIT), China, presented AI Green Index

– **Celina Lee** – CEO and co-founder of Zindi, AI innovation in Africa

– **Sasha Rubel** – AWS

– **Doug Smith** – Acting CEO of Data Friendly Space

– **Jean‑Francois Saint‑Pierre** – Microsoft, formerly with tech for social impact team

– **Manel Martorana** – NTT Data, IT services provider

– **Jason Slater** – Role/title not specified, involved in closing remarks and global call announcement

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# AI Solutions for Creating an Inclusive and Beneficial Digital Economy: Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This high-energy, rapid-fire discussion, conducted in “Jason Slater style” as part of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2025, brought together representatives from UN agencies, technology companies, and research institutions to address the critical challenge of creating an inclusive digital economy through artificial intelligence solutions. Moderated by Isabel de Sola from the UN Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies, the 45-minute post-lunch session examined how AI can bridge existing digital divides whilst ensuring that technological advancement serves all populations.

The conversation revealed a stark reality: whilst we are already living in a digital economy, it has failed to achieve the inclusive benefits originally envisioned when the WSIS framework was established two decades ago. With significant disparities in digital access and AI adoption across countries and industries, the digital divide continues to widen rather than narrow. The session concluded with the announcement of a Global Initiative for Digital Inclusion, representing a new global call for solutions to foster digital inclusion across five thematic areas.

The discussion demonstrated remarkable consensus among speakers on the need for ecosystem approaches to AI deployment, human-centred implementation, and the urgency of addressing digital exclusion through collaborative action between public and private sectors.

## Setting the Context: Twenty Years of WSIS and Current Challenges

Isabel de Sola opened the session by reflecting on the twenty years of engagement since the WSIS framework was established, noting that whilst we now live in a digital economy, it lacks the inclusivity that was originally hoped for. The statistics compiled by her office paint a concerning picture of persistent digital divides and uneven AI uptake across countries and industries.

The Global Digital Compact, approved in September 2024, was presented by Amandeep Singh Gill (who arrived late from an “AI governance lunch”) as a crucial framework for addressing these challenges. Unlike previous initiatives that focused primarily on principles, the Compact provides an action-oriented agenda with the inclusive digital economy at its centre. Objective 2 of the Compact specifically focuses on ensuring that no worker, enterprise, or country is left behind in digital transformation.

Gill raised a fundamental question about measurement: how do we define and measure the digital economy when global estimates vary widely between 10-40% of global GDP? This uncertainty about what constitutes the digital economy complicates efforts to develop targeted policies and measure progress towards inclusion.

## The Urgency of Action: Skills Gaps and Infrastructure Deficits

Ciyong Zou from UNIDO provided perhaps the most alarming statistic of the discussion: the global digital skills shortage threatens to leave 85 million jobs unfilled by 2030. As Zou emphasised, “Without deliberate targeted action, the digital divide will not just persist, it will deepen, creating a world where the benefits of AI are concentrated among the very few, while the many are left further behind.”

The infrastructure challenges are equally stark. Mattie Yeta from CGI, presenting via video, highlighted the disparity in internet access, with 93% usage in high-income countries compared to just 27% in low-income countries, leaving 2.6 billion people without internet access. This digital divide extends beyond mere connectivity to encompass data accessibility, reliable infrastructure, and purchasing power for AI technologies.

## The Ecosystem Approach: Building Fertile Ground for AI

A central theme throughout the discussion was the need for comprehensive ecosystem approaches rather than isolated technological solutions. Amandeep Singh Gill provided crucial insight into successful AI deployment: “If we ask the questions: why are the US and China so successful in deploying AI solutions? It’s because there is a broad base of the digital economy. So those seeds are falling on fertile land.”

This ecosystem thinking challenges the common approach of attempting to leapfrog directly to advanced AI without building foundational digital infrastructure. Gill emphasised that countries need to take a strategic approach to building the digital economy rather than engaging in “a blind race to match OpenAI, DeepSeek.” Successful AI implementation requires foundational elements including digital public infrastructure, policy frameworks, cybersecurity, e-commerce capabilities, and government services.

Ciyong Zou reinforced this perspective through UNIDO’s Global Alliance approach, which focuses on building scalable AI platforms through collaboration with 120 partners across 40 countries. Rather than pursuing isolated pilot projects, UNIDO emphasises creating comprehensive industrial ecosystems that make AI affordable and actionable for local industries.

## Concrete AI Solutions: Demonstrations of Impact

The session featured several compelling examples of AI solutions addressing various aspects of digital inclusion, demonstrating how AI can be deployed effectively when properly integrated into broader digital ecosystems.

### Environmental Monitoring and Sustainability

Mattie Yeta presented CGI’s environmental monitoring system, which uses satellite data and AI to predict water pollution. The system combines datasets from earth observation, sensors, and weather patterns to identify pollution from multiple sources and predict pollution likelihood.

Liu Hao from Beijing Institute of Technology introduced the AI Green Index, a joint product between UNIDO and Beijing Institute of Technology. This comprehensive measurement system features five pillars and 18 indicators designed to make AI environmentally sustainable. The index addresses the dual challenge of using AI to solve environmental problems whilst ensuring that AI itself operates sustainably, providing a framework for measuring and regulating AI’s environmental impact.

### Skills Development and Capacity Building

Celina Lee from Zindi presented a compelling model for AI skills development through her platform connecting 90,000 data scientists across 180 countries. The platform uses competitive challenges to build real-world AI skills. In Kenya, with 9,000 users and 2,000 achieving job outcomes, Zindi found that participants who entered five competitions and joined teams achieved positive job outcomes regardless of whether they won. This insight demonstrates that participation and collaboration matter more than individual excellence.

Jean-François Saint-Pierre from Microsoft announced the Elevate programme just 24 hours before the session (at 6 p.m. the previous day), representing a significant commitment for AI education and technology donations. The Microsoft Elevate Academy aims to help 20 million people learn AI skills over the next two years, addressing the massive skills gap through scalable, accessible training programmes.

### Humanitarian and Crisis Response

Doug Smith from Data Friendly Space presented AI-enabled humanitarian response tools that can provide rapid analysis within three hours of disasters. Using a hypothetical example of a Myanmar earthquake (which he clarified was not a real event), Smith demonstrated how the Gannet system’s three main components—virtual assistant, situation hub, and private workspace—allow conversational interaction with data and provide regular updates during crises.

Sasha Rubel from AWS emphasised the importance of reducing “the space between data, information and insights and life-saving action,” redefining AI not merely as a data processing tool but as a bridge to actionable intervention in humanitarian contexts.

### Industrial and Workplace Applications

Manel Martorana from NTT Data showcased AI applications addressing workplace challenges including worker shortages, accessibility for people with disabilities, and workplace safety. These applications demonstrate how AI can augment human capabilities rather than replace workers, making technology more accessible and affordable across various industrial settings.

## Corporate Responsibility and Partnership Models

The discussion revealed strong alignment among major technology companies on using their resources and platforms to democratise AI access rather than focusing primarily on commercial applications. Microsoft’s Elevate commitment, AWS’s humanitarian partnerships, and NTT Data’s focus on accessibility all demonstrate how private sector organisations can contribute to inclusive digital economy development.

This alignment between UN agencies and private sector organisations suggests significant potential for coordinated global action, with speakers consistently emphasising human-centred AI implementation and the importance of human-in-the-loop systems designed to augment rather than replace human capabilities.

## The Global Call for Solutions: A New Initiative

The session concluded with Jason Slater announcing the launch of the Global Initiative for Digital Inclusion, representing a new global call for solutions to foster digital inclusion. This initiative seeks innovative approaches across five thematic areas: skills empowerment, enabling policy, innovation acceleration, sustainable digital supply chains, and additional areas to be specified.

Selected solutions will be promoted during the UN General Assembly’s 80th session and UNIDO’s general conference, providing a pathway for scaling successful innovations. The call for solutions represents a concrete step towards implementing the collaborative, ecosystem-based approaches discussed throughout the session.

## Challenges and Unresolved Issues

Despite the optimistic tone and concrete solutions presented, several significant challenges remain unresolved. The measurement problem identified by Amandeep Singh Gill represents a fundamental challenge: how can we build an inclusive digital economy without clear metrics for what constitutes success?

The standardisation of AI governance frameworks, particularly for environmental sustainability, remains incomplete. Liu Hao noted that whilst Europe has some AI regulations, other regions lack adequate frameworks for measuring and regulating AI’s environmental impact.

The challenge of scaling successful pilot projects to comprehensive industrial ecosystems persists. Whilst several speakers presented successful local implementations, the question of how to adapt and scale these solutions across different contexts and regions requires continued attention.

## Key Agreements and Consensus

The discussion demonstrated remarkable consensus among speakers on fundamental challenges and goals. All participants agreed on the urgency of addressing digital exclusion, the critical nature of skills gaps, and the need for ecosystem approaches to AI deployment. The alignment between UN agencies and private sector organisations on human-centred AI implementation suggests a mature understanding of AI’s role in inclusive development.

Speakers consistently emphasised that successful AI deployment cannot be achieved through isolated technological solutions but requires comprehensive digital transformation addressing infrastructure, skills, policy frameworks, and sustainable implementation practices simultaneously.

## Conclusion

This rapid-fire discussion highlighted both the urgency and the opportunity inherent in creating an inclusive digital economy through AI. The 85 million jobs that may go unfilled by 2030 and the 2.6 billion people without internet access represent significant challenges, but the solutions presented demonstrate that progress is possible when AI is deployed within comprehensive digital ecosystems.

The consensus among speakers on the need for collaborative, human-centred approaches to AI development provides a foundation for coordinated action. The combination of UN framework initiatives like the Global Digital Compact, substantial private sector commitments, and the new Global Initiative for Digital Inclusion suggests potential for more coordinated global action in the next phase of digital economy development.

However, success will require sustained commitment to building foundational digital infrastructure, addressing skills gaps through innovative training approaches, and ensuring that AI solutions remain accessible and relevant to the communities they are meant to serve. The global call for solutions represents an important step towards mobilising the innovation and collaboration necessary to achieve these ambitious goals.

As the session demonstrated, whilst we are already living in a digital economy, the work of making it truly inclusive requires deliberate, targeted action across multiple dimensions. The AI solutions and approaches presented offer concrete examples of how this can be achieved when technology is deployed within comprehensive, human-centred frameworks designed to serve all populations.

Isabel de Sola: Good afternoon, everyone. Good morning. Good evening. Can you hear me okay online. Thank you. I am Isabel de Sola, I am part of the UN Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies, and I have the great pleasure to be your moderator for this exciting session, AI solutions for an inclusive and beneficial digital economy today. So we have 45 minutes and this is going to be in the style of Jason Slater and if you know him you know that it’s high energy. It’s after lunch. I hope all of you had a chance to have a coffee here in Geneva. So we have 45 minutes and what we’d like to do first is set the scene. What is even an inclusive and beneficial digital economy. And then we’d like to provide some examples concrete examples of AI solutions for organizations of all sizes that can showcase the different ways in which AI will power the digital economy or continue to transform the digital economy. I’d like to just take a note as well or share with all of you my immense pleasure that it’s been 20 years now that the WSIS framework has been engaging on the topic of the digital economy. So the WSIS level event 2025 is particularly important because it gives us a chance to look back. If you read the original texts of the WSIS on the digital economy it was quite hopeful. 20 years ago, these digital technologies were going to come into small, medium, and large organizations and help them buy and sell goods and services, help them find the clients, partners, supply parts that they needed, and everything was going to be great. I think part of our reflection today will be to take stock that we are in the digital economy already. However, it’s not as incredibly inclusive for all as we expected. So we now have some statistics that can describe that thanks to different UN offices, some of them who are in the room, UNCTAD that produces a report every year on the state of the digital economy. the International Trade Center, the WTO, they have noticed that there’s a certain trend towards large organizations in the digital economy. Using that instead of to say a trend towards concentration or monopolization in the digital economy. We know that 80% of companies worldwide don’t have web pages, for example, and the uptake of AI varies from country to country and from industry to industry. So with that as our backdrop, I’d like to introduce two very thoughtful speakers. The Deputy to the Director General of UNIDO, Mr. Siyong Su. Over to you for some scene-setting remarks.

Ciyong Zou: Thank you. Thank you very much, moderator. Distinguished representatives, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. A warm welcome to this pivotal session on AI solutions for an inclusive digital economy. We gather here today at a defining moment in human history, where artificial intelligence is not merely changing how we work. It is fundamentally reshaping the very fabric of industries, economies, and societies around the world. The question we face is not whether AI will transform our world, but rather how we can ensure that this transformation serves everyone, particularly those who have been historically left behind by technological progress. At UNIDO, we view AI as a powerful enabler of inclusive and sustainable industrial development through smart manufacturing, data-driven value chains, and intelligent production systems, supported by our network of centers of excellence. We have witnessed how AI can help developing countries leapfrog entire infrastructural stages and build resilient and climate-smart economies. However, we must confront the stark realities that threaten to undermine this potential. Perhaps most alarming is that our global digital skills shortage threatens to leave 85 million jobs unfilled by 2030. Without deliberate targeted action, the digital divide will not just persist, it will deepen, creating a world where the benefits of AI are concentrated among the very few, while the many are left further behind. This is precisely why UNIDO has taken on the responsibility of co-leading Objective 2 of the Global Digital Compact, placing the inclusive digital economy at the very heart of the international development agenda. Our mission is to ensure that no worker, no enterprise, and no country is left behind in this digital transformation. This is easy to talk about, but difficult to realize. We must work together to unlock AI’s potential to create jobs for everybody, every country. In this regard, UNIDO is now working together with partners from the public and private sectors of the UN system to drive this kind of inclusive application of AI in different sectors, particularly in the manufacturing sector. I think this is really an issue we have to address together. Distinguished representatives, today’s event represents more than just an event. important conversation. It is a call to action, a call to implementation. UNIDO is moving beyond the pilot project, face towards building scalable platforms and the comprehensive industrial AI ecosystems. Through our flagship in global alliance, we are collaborating with over 120 partners across 40 countries, including leading technology firms and the industrial players to make AI affordable, adaptable and actionable for local industries worldwide. We are not just talking about AI, we are building AI skill systems, accelerating investor matchmaking and transferring proven solutions directly to factories and supply chains, where they can create immediate impact. Our approach recognizes that for AI to truly serve in inclusive development, it must be grounded in the reality of local context, accessible to micro, small and medium enterprises, and designed to strengthen rather than displace home capabilities. I’m particularly excited about today’s rapid fire solution, which will showcase exactly the kinds of cost-effective, context-aware innovations we need to close the digital gaps and bring the transformative benefits of AI to the global source. These presentations will demonstrate how inclusive innovation can bridge the digital divide and create benefits that extend far beyond individual companies or countries. As we move forward, let us remember that AI’s true success lies not in advanced algorithm or faster processing, but in ensuring this digital revolution is guided by human value, inclusion, equity, and the real-world industrial impact. The future of AI must be a future where technology serves humanity, where digital transformation reinforces our commitment to leaving no one behind, and the benefits of innovation reach every corner of the world. I invite you all to join this mission. Together, let us make the AI revolution a force for equity, sustainable development, and shared prosperity. Thank you for your kind attention.

Isabel de Sola: Thank you, Mr. Zou, and as Dr. Amandeep Singh Gill, the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy on Technology, has just joined us, I’ll give him a minute or so to gather his thoughts on how the GDC, the Global Digital Compact, which was approved in September of 2024, gives a framework within which we can work on the digital inclusive economy. Our office that supported the negotiation of the GDC conducted some research or gathered some data points that I’d like to share with you now about what are some of the hurdles to the digital inclusive economy according to small and medium-sized enterprises. We gathered this data from the ITC and from UNCTAD reports and from different sources to better understand what’s standing in the way of bringing in all shapes and sizes into this digital economy. Mr. Su mentioned some of them. Lack of qualified and certified workforce on AI-related jobs was the number one concern of the companies that participated in this research. Lack of reliable data as the fuel of AI that could be useful in specific contexts. Lack of reliable infrastructure, so the old digital divide, electricity, computing power, data centers, and also low purchasing power from businesses of different sizes to pay for the licenses of pre-trained frameworks. So those are some of the challenges that were in the backdrop of the negotiation of Objective 2 of the GDC. And I’m very pleased to invite Amandeep to share some remarks with us on that question.

Amandeep Singh Gill: Thank you very much. Thank you, Isabel. And good afternoon, everyone. DDG, good to be here with you. Apologies, the AI governance lunch is just about to finish. I managed to get away. Sorry for being late. Wherever you go these days, any region, when you meet with leaders, either from the public sector or the private sector, an inclusive digital economy is top of mind. Quality jobs and using the digital opportunity to leapfrog the development challenges. So that’s why it was natural for the Global Digital Compact to center the inclusive digital economy in terms of its five objectives, five recommendations. Some of them are enduring. They are a continuation of our agenda from the past. Some of them are emerging, AI governance, for example. But this is where the center really is, you know, center of gravity of the Global Digital Compact. And fortunately, we have an agenda, an action agenda. So it’s not just a description of the challenge. It’s not only principles and what needs to be done in analytical terms, but you know, actual actions. Some actions that have been tried over the past few years and have come out successfully, for example, investments in digital public infrastructure, where you can make every dollar count more than how ICT spend happens in the global north, for example. The points that the DDG was making in terms of, you know, harnessing some of these emerging technologies where the barriers to adoption may be lower. I mean, we still have to see, so question mark, fingers crossed. But I think with Gen-AI, we may see some barriers to adoption come down. Other barriers to development may actually go up, but some barriers to adoption may come down. So those are kind of action areas. In the work that we’ve done since then on the SG’s report on capacity building for AI, we’ve also looked at different maturity levels and what it needs, what they imply in terms of graduation pathways, countries going to higher levels of maturity on the digital economy. We’ve also looked at ways to measure the digital economy. Today, it’s a bit fuzzy. If you look at global estimates, anywhere between 10 to 20%, some people say that in a short while, this could be up to 40% of the global GDP. But how do we count this? What do we leave out? Is it only ICT spend? It’s something else. There’s some interesting research underway and we need to kind of prioritize that. And I’m so glad that UNIDO and UNCTAD are taking the lead in sub-objective two of the UN Systems Working Group on Digital Technologies to focus on some of these kind of issues. Lastly, just to close with a kind of a building block approach we need for this topic. So AI solutions, they could be discrete, but they best serve the purpose if they emerge from an organic ecosystem on the digital economy. If we ask the questions. You know, why are the US and China so successful in deploying AI solution? It’s because there is a broad base of the digital economy. So those seeds are falling on fertile land. So this is where I think countries, rather than, you know, a blind race to kind of match open AI, deep seek, you know, GPE for GPU need to take a strategic approach to building the digital economy. The foundation of digital public infrastructure, policy and regulation for data and skills, investments in cybersecurity, early use cases around e-commerce, government services, delivery of government services, where, you know, you can let the private sector take the lead. And there are some areas where public sector may take the lead, but other areas like health and agriculture where the two must combine forces. So then that kind of creates the ecosystem in which if you have sufficient data flows going through DPIs, you have all these, you know, ecosystems of collaboration coming up, then AI starts, AI solutions start to emerge in an organic way. So I think that is the approach that UNIDO and UNCTAD and all of us at the UN are trying to advocate and promote. Thank you.

Isabel de Sola: Thank you, Amandeep. That’s an excellent transition, actually, to begin looking at some of the AI solutions that will be presented now as inspirations, as examples, as catalysts for others. So we’re going to do a tour de force around the world of AI solutions that have grown up in their context, starting with Mattie Yeta from CGI in the UK who sent a video.

Mattie Yeta: CGI is excited to bring be part of the World Summit on the Information Society Forum 2025. We are one of the largest IT and business consulting services firms in the world. Our work with UNIDO is centered around developing innovative solutions such as AI, digital twins, blockchain, earth observations for sustainable development through our SEEDS program, Sustainability, Exploration and Environmental Data Science. Despite seeing massive ICT adoption in some places and the speed of innovations like AI in other places, there’s still a widening digital divide locally and globally. For example, internet usage in high-income countries sits at 93% whilst in low-income countries it sits at 27%. That means 2.6 billion people around the world are without internet. The adoption of digital technologies in countries around the world faces many hurdles such as inadequate infrastructure, skills and financial constraints which are all challenges that can be solved and that is why we have proposed a solution through CGI SEEDS program and UNIDO’s SCALEx program. We firmly believe that digital technologies such as AI can contribute to an inclusive digital economy for all. Our idea presents an effective and scalable solution towards realizing the benefits of a digital economy. Our solution focuses on the Sustainable Development Goals 1. No Poverty, 2. Zero Hunger, 6. Clean Water and Sanitation, 9. Industry Innovation and Infrastructure, 13. Climate Action. 14, life below water, and 15, life on land. The solution we’re proposing focuses on using AI to identify pollution within our waters from multiple sources, from agriculture, such as water runoff by the application of heavy fertilizers, or pollution from heavy industries, such as mining or manufacturing. We’re excited that our solution combines different datasets, such as Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 datasets from earth observation, ground-truthing data from sensors, datasets from historic sources, as well as other current datasets, such as weather patterns. We combine these multiple sources of datasets, which effectively create a big dataset for us to apply using AI to then predict the likelihood of where pollution will occur at any point in time within our rivers. It will also predict into the future how likely pollutants will affect land use or our water systems. In addition to that, our solution is proposing the use of AI to support precision agriculture and farming. It will also support the identification of renewable sources of energy through scenario modeling and predicting availability of energy sources like solar into the future. Through this forum and through UNIDO, we would love to partner with like-minded people, organizations, and countries that would love to drive innovative solutions for sustainable development, for growth, and for future generations.

Isabel de Sola: Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you, Maddy, or thank you CGI colleagues who are listening online for that example, which is so relevant today. I’d like to hand the baton to Liu Hao from BIT, yes, for a solution from your hometown. Could you tell us where is your hometown?

LIU Hao: I’m coming from China and today I have five minutes to present the AI Green Index. So I will try to finish within five minutes. So when we are talking about the efficiencies that are brought by the AI, we have to realize that AI is a bigger consumer of the energy and the other resources. So if we don’t take any action, AI itself will be a big environment in danger. So well, the regulation for the green AI or the regulation for the AI green performance is not right there. Not only the green performance, even the generative AI regulation. We have AI act in Europe, but for the other regions, we are not quite ready. And the global level, we are still lacking behind. A lot of action are waiting for us. So if we want AI to be green, we need to define the green AI. So our solution understanding that a green AI is a sustainable practice to minimize environmental impact and it continues to improve organizational and social wellbeing. So to make AI green, it is not only AI itself, it’s an ecosystem. It’s hard to consider the infrastructure, the algorithm, the regulation compliance, and also the socioeconomic part. So this is a ecosystem of systematic thinking. We have some tools to measuring, to calculating, but they are not quite enough. So that is why the AI green index is providing a comprehensive index so that we can calculate different parts and we can make the green tool with the guidance and standards in the. AI Green Index, we consider that AI will not only be an enabler, so it’s driven innovation. Yes, it’s a tool, but we will also make AI to help achieve the other sustainable goals. So this is the joint effort and joint product between UNIDO team and Beijing Institute of Technology. So the AI Green Index has five different dimensions, or we call the five pillars. With 18 indicators, okay, with 18 indicators. So you don’t need to read right now because I will share all of the slides. So everything is based on good monitoring and trustworthy data. So it is not only the ranking, you will have good data to show whether it is the performance, whether it is a balance. So we have a variety of users that can use this index. We also have a long list of values that have been created by this index system. I will not read them, and it will definitely help with the digital transformation. The next work will be, we will work on the optimization of future weight. We will also create online tools. So it is not inclusive, it will be inclusive. And we will first, a group of users, a pilot user will work together with us. So the goal is simple. So use the AI Green Index, let the AI to be green, and also serve for the green digital transformation. So if you wanted to know more, if it’s gone on slides, you may contact me.

Isabel de Sola: That was even faster than the five minutes. Thank you so much. And I’d like to turn to Selena from the CEO of Zindi for some thoughts on her youth-led AI innovation in Africa.

Celina Lee: Okay. Thank you. Oh, no. You’re pulling up my slides. Okay. So, my name is Selina. I’m the CEO and co-founder of Zindi. We like to consider ourselves and say that we are the AI innovation and talent factory for the world. And we are a community now of 90,000 data scientists and AI developers from across 180 countries in the world. We run challenges of let me just get to my next slide. We run so when a young person joins Zindi, they’re able to join challenges. So, we host we’ve hosted over 400 challenges. These are addressing everything from the SDGs to business problems. These are real world challenges that come from governments, companies, startup companies. And every time we launch a new challenge, we open it up to our community. Our community competes to build the AI solutions to solve these problems. And every time that they enter one of these competitions, they’re now able to build up their Zindi profile. So, every accomplishment that they make gets added to their profile, which becomes like an online CV or a portfolio of work, which then allows them to, of course, attract the attention of hiring managers and companies that need them. So, I wanted to give just give an example. So, I said we have 90,000, 180 countries. But this is part of just a slice of the community that is in Kenya. We did a study recently of our data on our Kenyan users. And we found that we have about 9,000 people in Kenya. We found that close to 2,000 of them have had some kind of job outcome, some positive job outcome, like a promotion or a new job. And we found that the people who had positive job outcomes, the only thing they had to do, they did not have to win the competition. but if they entered five competitions, they had five use cases that they have worked on and that they joined a team. That means that they’ve formed teams across their peers. They were able to get job outcomes. So I think this was a really exciting finding. And yeah, just in the end to say that, we’re at close to a hundred thousand now. Our goal is to get to a million users. Our vision is to make AI accessible to everyone. So that means everything from the problems that need AI to help them solve them, as well as for young people across the world to have access to those opportunities to build their skills.

Isabel de Sola: Thank you, Selena. That’s really inspiring. And it seems like such a great environment to be interacting with. We have some colleagues here from AWS that I’d like to introduce. I have Sasha Rubel and I’m sorry, Doug Smith as well. Welcome to the conversation and tell us about your AI solutions.

Sasha Rubel: Thank you so much for having us. I will cede the majority of my five minutes to Doug Smith who is acting CEO of Data Friendly Space because it is emblematic of our commitment at AWS not only to democratize access to AI innovation, but to also highlight the stories on the ground that we see as best practices to scale. And I will just say that for us, the big question and the big opportunity of AI and Amandeep was just sharing this earlier over lunch is how do we reduce the space between data, information and insights and life-saving action. And so really excited that Doug Smith was already in Geneva and was willing to share a little bit more about his solution at Data Friendly Space, and Gannett that was the recipient of an award at AWS and with whom we’re very happy to continue to cooperate with.

Doug Smith: Well, thank you for the opportunity. to speak. March 28th, a massive earthquake hit Myanmar, and the devastation was quite significant. Fifty percent of the buildings in Mandalay were either destroyed or really almost beyond repair. It had an $11 billion impact on the economy and probably has meant that we’ll see year-over-year inflation in that region at beyond 34 percent, which is quite high. In the hours as the world began to hear about the earthquake, it was a common story, which is a lack of information, a lack of trustworthy sources, and really general chaos on how it is that the humanitarian sector can respond. We had experienced this over and over and over again since 2018 when we were founded, but we had something else in our toolbox this year. As Sasha said, we launched two years ago a collaboration with AWS, and we call it Gannet, and it had a significant impact on the way that we were able to respond. Within three hours, we had taken the challenges that were on the table, challenges that we had experienced over and over again, and we were able to deploy Gannet. Gannet is a suite of AI-enabled tools that are built for the humanitarian and development response communities. And what it’s allowed us to do within those first three hours is to very quickly mobilize, pull data from trusted sources like UN OCHA, and then generate response reports and analysis that we could then push out to responders. Maybe more importantly, very quickly, once the chaos began to calm, we were able to move that analysis into the hands of local actors, so that they had access to the same information that those responding from Geneva had. That really is one of the powers of AI, to be honest with you. The toolbox has three dominant parts. One is a virtual assistant. It’s a generative system that allows you not just to get results, but to ask questions of the results. And if your question and response hasn’t created clarity, you can follow up with yet another question and have a conversation with the data. That’s the power of AI in the humanitarian space. And fortunately, this is deployed. This is not an idea. It’s not a concept. This is something that we’re actively using on the ground. We heard very quickly from our partners on the ground that they needed actually something that was providing them very fast information within a framework that’s common within the humanitarian space. And so, we put this into something that we call the Situation Hub, and it provides situational analysis. Now, traditionally, we do point-in-time analysis once, twice a year on situations. We were able to update this analysis in the first days of that daily, and to this day, we maintain weekly updates with a human in the loop. So, we take the AI, we build a RAG model on top of a foundational model, and the RAG heavily weights trusted sources coming from UN partners, and then we put a human in the loop to make sure that that automated analysis is curated and accurate. Last week, we actually launched something called Gannett Workspace because we know there are some partners that need private and secure information. And so this will allow people to spin up very quickly their own rag within the foundational model and to query that information. Now, we think that this is really quite a game changer. And the impact, I have to say, is fairly significant, because we’ve already deployed this in Lebanon, now in Myanmar, in Sudan. We are well beyond the MVP. At this stage, what we really want to do is see this scale up to increase the impact. That way, the next time a crisis hits, we can be more prepared to be able to provide actors on the ground with that information. Now let me quickly say that the reviews have been quite good. OCHA used this information. UNDAC and their ANA cell used GANET analysis as their primary tools in their response. And I think that their feedback to us has been very helpful. We have made adjustments. That’s how we work. We’re very agile. And in addition to that, NGOs on the ground also have given us fantastic feedback about ways that we can help them to work with local populations to very quickly get back on their feet, to increase the economic recovery from large-scale events, and to own the response and the data.

Isabel de Sola: Thank you. Thank you so much, Sacha and Doug. We have two more solutions to be presented. I’d like to turn to Jean St-Pierre from Microsoft. Jean-François.

Jean‑Francois Saint‑Pierre: Thank you very much. And thank you for having us. I’m happy today to introduce Microsoft Elevate. And you probably haven’t heard about it because 24 hours ago it did not exist. It was announced at 6 p.m. yesterday. So what is Microsoft Elevate? Microsoft Elevate sees the bringing into one organization of technology support, donations, and sales for schools, community colleges, and nonprofit organizations. It is the successor to and expands upon the longstanding work of Microsoft philanthropies and tech for social impact. I used to be tech for social impact. It’s the team that supports the not-for-profits in the United Nations. More broadly, this is the next chapter for corporate philanthropy and our noncommercial business model. As we have with tech for social impact, we will run this new business with commitments to invest a share of our profits into the nonprofit programs. We announced yesterday that over the next five years, we will donate on a global scale more than $4 billion in donations, AI and cloud technology to schools, communities, and technical colleges, and nonprofits to advance their missions. In addition, is it working? Yes. In addition, Microsoft Elevate will also pursue the next phase of our global skilling programs and initiatives through the Microsoft Elevate Academy. It will help bring AI education and skills to people around the world. In the next two years, Microsoft Elevate Academy will help 20 million people learn an in-demand AI skilling credential ranging from foundational fluency to advanced technical training and working in close coordination with other groups across Microsoft and LinkedIn and GitHub. Microsoft Elevate will deliver AI education and skilling at scale. It will work as an advocate for public policies around the world to advance AI education and training for others. This is in recognition to a changing skills environment. 70% of skills used in most jobs will change by 2030. 30% since last fall. We can see that AI hiring has grown 30% faster than overall hiring. And 78% of leaders are considering hiring for AI-specific roles. And Microsoft is building on existing core offerings. Offerings around curriculum, credentials and training, like AI Skills Navigator, Microsoft Learn, which is open and free for everyone, and LinkedIn Learning, community and recognition, and Data & Insights. And building upon that, we have partnerships, just like the Learning Passport that was built by UNICEF with the support of Microsoft, which has allowed up to 9 million children and young people in 45 countries an access to continuous quality and inclusive education and bridged the digital divide. This is my last slide. Hopefully it comes. But Microsoft Elevate will unlock the opportunity of AI for everyone. Thank you.

Isabel de Sola: Thank you, Jean-Francois. And we have one last solution before we tie this all together. From NTT Data, I’d like to hand over to Manel Martorama.

Manel Martorana: Thank you very much. Thank you very much for inviting us, and let us join this very important conversation on our future. My name is Manel Martorana, and I represent NTT Data, which is the IT services provider from the NTT Group, which is the telco that I think you already know from Japan. We are the sixth IT services company in the world and the third largest data center provider in the world. And also… And also, we are the second digital provider for the United Nations. These are the official figures. I have to say that maybe in the following months we can say we are no more the second, and maybe we are the first. We’ll see next year. We have been working for the United Nations the last 10 years in different agencies and a lot of different projects. So, talking about the challenges that we are seeing in many industries when it comes to is that sometimes the digital divide is becoming even worse or even larger than it was before. For example, let me highlight some challenges. There are a critical shortage on qualified workers in operational environments. Nearly 30% of the world population lives with vision impairments or hearing loss, and 20% have some degrees of discapacity. And despite the improvements in automation, we still see hundreds, millions of workplace accidents over the world. This is a reality. So, the question is, what can we do? But also, what benefits can we get from AI initiatives? And for this reason, we tried to bring into the conversation some examples of real projects and real activities that we are doing in several industries, applying AI, trying to make this digital divide a little bit smaller. For example, what we call the perfect store, that it’s applying AI on the vision of, for example, retail shave and seeing which is the provision that we need to establish for this retail store, or for example, applying in certain industries, large visual models, large visual models where we can see without the intervention of humans, what is happening in a warehouse, for example, but also, for example, for security implication. Also, when there are people in the field that needs to access the knowledge base, for example, for acting in a solar plant or in a distant industry, accessing to the knowledge of the company is not that easy and applying different kind of chatbots that can particularize to the context and to devise the information that is needed, for example, to make any kind of actions on the industry. This makes that every people can access information. And of course, this is one thing that with the application of Gen AI, it’s been a lot easier and a lot of reality than it was before. That’s it. That’s just some examples of the application of Gen AI in different industries that makes really technology more affordable for everyone. Thank you very much.

Isabel de Sola: That’s wonderful. Thank you, Manel. And I, you know, this has been a tour de force around the world and from high and low levels. Let me see if I can summarize some of the solutions that we’ve got. So if we start with the problems, with the challenges that Si Yong articulated for us, there are skills gaps, there’s connectivity gaps, there is a lack of data, a lack of infrastructure, a cloud, unaffordable technologies, the digital literacy piece. So to have an inclusive and beneficial economy, we need to come at it from all of those things at the same time. And I think we managed to do that in 40 minutes. Thank you, everyone, for being so brief. You know, we heard about GAN. So, that’s using data, essentially, to reach vulnerable, marginalized populations. You gave an example of a time of crisis, but the know-how of that could be applicable across many industries, I think, and marketplaces. How do you reach the target population just in time for sales or with bottles of water? We heard about, as well, reaching specific populations like youth to have them learn from each other, learn by doing, experiment with the technology so that they can build the digital skills that they need and literacy, also to create networks amongst them so that they come at problems together. And I think Microsoft’s initiative, congratulations on this announcement yesterday, is squarely in the space of building digital literacy as well. And then, we heard about bringing the AI to the factory floor, so either to enhance the humans. Actually, I couldn’t see the screen, so the visually impaired is now me at 46. But also to help us when we don’t see things, security problems, or to emerge information that could make us more efficient on the factory floor, but at an affordable price. And then, we heard about solutions, the Green AI Index and the SEED project from CGI that are looking at how to deal with some of the unsustainability of our economies, how to deal with some of the perhaps negative impacts of our production of agriculture or of the digital infrastructure and tools that we’re using. So, in a nutshell, Jason, it’s going to take a village to have an inclusive digital economy, I think, or it’s going to take small, large initiatives from all different types of organizations around the world. So, let me hand over to you for maybe a call and a close. Okay.

Jason Slater: Thank you very much, Isabel. And knowing that we’re slightly overrunning and in the spirit of RAPID, I will try to keep this to maybe one minute. minute. So the purpose of this, first of all, also I would just like to echo, thank you so much for those of you who came together and all of those of you who have joined us in this session today. The purpose of this is that today is when we will be making our global call. This is a collaboration between Nido, UNCTAD, UNDCO and Audit, amongst others who are part of the working group. And this is a launch for a global call for solutions aimed at fostering an inclusive digital economy by identifying innovative digital solutions that empower undeserved communities worldwide. This initiative supports the 2030 agenda for sustainable development by promoting equitable access to digital technologies and opportunities. The Global Initiative for Digital Inclusion, this is a call today where we’re looking for solutions that empower marginalized groups including women, youth, small medium enterprises, startups, innovators to build an inclusive, secure and sustainable digital economy. Applications are open to everybody. Innovators, entrepreneurs, NGOs, organizations advancing digital and inclusive empowerment. We’re focusing primarily on five thematic areas. This is around skills, empowerment, enabling policy, innovation acceleration, sustainable digital supply chains to promote digital learning, market access, etc. What will happen to those who are ultimately selected? There will be a judge of us and it will come around from UN and others where we will have selected solutions and our aim is to then promote that during UNGA 80, also going into Nido’s own general conference and others, possibly E-Trade, etc. So that we can help promote and showcase with the hope that we can help you then in deploying some of those within our projects and programs to really demonstrate impact on the ground. So thank you and with that I’m happy to announce that our call is now open and you will have the opportunity to apply in the next few days. Thank you very much Isabel.

Isabel de Sola: Thank you UNIDO for bringing us for bringing us all together and have a wonderful rest of your afternoon and rest of the summit. Thank you.

Agreement points

Digital divide and lack of inclusivity in current digital economy

Speakers

– Isabel de Sola
– Ciyong Zou
– Mattie Yeta

Arguments

The digital economy exists but lacks inclusivity with 80% of companies worldwide lacking web pages and uneven AI uptake across countries and industries

AI is fundamentally reshaping industries, economies, and societies, but the transformation must serve everyone, particularly those historically left behind

Internet usage disparity shows 93% in high-income countries versus 27% in low-income countries, leaving 2.6 billion people without internet

Summary

All speakers acknowledge that while digital transformation is occurring, there are significant gaps in access and participation, with billions of people and most companies still excluded from the digital economy

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Skills shortage as critical barrier to inclusive digital economy

Speakers

– Isabel de Sola
– Ciyong Zou
– Jean‑Francois Saint‑Pierre

Arguments

Key hurdles include lack of qualified AI workforce, unreliable data, poor infrastructure, and low purchasing power for AI licenses

Global digital skills shortage threatens to leave 85 million jobs unfilled by 2030, creating deeper digital divides

70% of job skills will change by 2030, with AI hiring growing 30% faster than overall hiring

Summary

There is strong consensus that the lack of qualified workforce and rapidly changing skill requirements represent fundamental barriers to achieving an inclusive digital economy

Topics

Development | Economic

Need for comprehensive ecosystem approach rather than isolated solutions

Speakers

– Amandeep Singh Gill
– Ciyong Zou
– Jason Slater

Arguments

AI solutions work best when emerging from organic digital economy ecosystems, requiring foundational digital public infrastructure, policy frameworks, and strategic investments

UNIDO is building scalable AI platforms and industrial ecosystems through collaboration with 120 partners across 40 countries to make AI affordable and actionable for local industries

The Global Initiative for Digital Inclusion launches a call for solutions focusing on skills empowerment, enabling policy, innovation acceleration, and sustainable digital supply chains

Summary

Speakers agree that successful digital transformation requires building comprehensive ecosystems with multiple stakeholders rather than implementing isolated technological solutions

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize practical, hands-on learning approaches for AI skills development, with focus on community-based learning and real-world application rather than traditional educational models

Speakers

– Celina Lee
– Jean‑Francois Saint‑Pierre

Arguments

A community of 90,000 data scientists across 180 countries can build AI skills through real-world challenges, with job outcomes achieved by entering five competitions and joining teams

Microsoft Elevate will donate $4 billion over five years and help 20 million people learn AI skills through the Microsoft Elevate Academy

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers advocate for AI solutions that democratize access to critical information and capabilities, particularly in humanitarian contexts where speed and accessibility can save lives

Speakers

– Sasha Rubel
– Doug Smith

Arguments

AWS partnership demonstrates how to reduce the gap between data and life-saving action in humanitarian contexts

AI-enabled tools can provide rapid humanitarian response within three hours of disasters, generating analysis reports and mobilizing local actors with the same information available to international responders

Topics

Development

Both speakers focus on environmental sustainability and the dual role of AI as both a solution for environmental challenges and a technology that must itself be made environmentally sustainable

Speakers

– Mattie Yeta
– LIU Hao

Arguments

AI solutions should address precision agriculture, renewable energy identification, and climate action through scenario modeling

The AI Green Index provides a comprehensive measurement system with five pillars and 18 indicators to make AI environmentally sustainable

Topics

Development | Sustainable development

Unexpected consensus

Corporate responsibility in AI democratization

Speakers

– Jean‑Francois Saint‑Pierre
– Sasha Rubel
– Manel Martorana

Arguments

Microsoft Elevate will donate $4 billion over five years and help 20 million people learn AI skills through the Microsoft Elevate Academy

AWS partnership demonstrates how to reduce the gap between data and life-saving action in humanitarian contexts

AI applications in retail, warehouses, and industrial settings can make technology more accessible and affordable for everyone

Explanation

Unexpectedly, all major technology companies represented showed strong alignment on using their resources and platforms to democratize AI access rather than focusing primarily on commercial applications. This suggests a significant shift in corporate strategy toward inclusive development

Topics

Development | Economic

Human-centered AI implementation

Speakers

– Ciyong Zou
– Doug Smith
– Manel Martorana

Arguments

UNIDO is building scalable AI platforms and industrial ecosystems through collaboration with 120 partners across 40 countries to make AI affordable and actionable for local industries

Gannet system includes virtual assistants, situation hubs, and private workspaces that allow conversational interaction with data and regular updates during crises

AI can address workplace challenges including critical shortage of qualified workers, accessibility for people with disabilities, and workplace safety through visual models and knowledge access systems

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus across different sectors (industrial development, humanitarian response, and corporate IT services) on the importance of human-in-the-loop AI systems and designing AI to augment rather than replace human capabilities

Topics

Development | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around the fundamental challenges of digital exclusion, skills gaps, and the need for ecosystem approaches. All speakers agreed on the urgency of making AI accessible and beneficial for underserved populations, with surprising alignment between UN agencies and private sector on collaborative approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for coordinated global action. The alignment between public and private sector speakers suggests potential for effective partnerships in implementing inclusive digital economy initiatives. The shared recognition of systemic challenges and ecosystem solutions indicates readiness for comprehensive, multi-stakeholder approaches rather than fragmented efforts.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

The session showed remarkable consensus among speakers on the fundamental challenges and goals of creating an inclusive digital economy through AI. The only areas of variation were in implementation approaches rather than fundamental disagreements.

Disagreement level

Very low disagreement level. This was a highly collaborative session where speakers built upon each other’s points rather than challenging them. The lack of significant disagreement suggests strong alignment within the UN system and partner organizations on digital inclusion priorities, but may also indicate limited diversity of perspectives or the structured nature of the presentation format that didn’t encourage debate.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize practical, hands-on learning approaches for AI skills development, with focus on community-based learning and real-world application rather than traditional educational models

Speakers

– Celina Lee
– Jean‑Francois Saint‑Pierre

Arguments

A community of 90,000 data scientists across 180 countries can build AI skills through real-world challenges, with job outcomes achieved by entering five competitions and joining teams

Microsoft Elevate will donate $4 billion over five years and help 20 million people learn AI skills through the Microsoft Elevate Academy

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers advocate for AI solutions that democratize access to critical information and capabilities, particularly in humanitarian contexts where speed and accessibility can save lives

Speakers

– Sasha Rubel
– Doug Smith

Arguments

AWS partnership demonstrates how to reduce the gap between data and life-saving action in humanitarian contexts

AI-enabled tools can provide rapid humanitarian response within three hours of disasters, generating analysis reports and mobilizing local actors with the same information available to international responders

Topics

Development

Both speakers focus on environmental sustainability and the dual role of AI as both a solution for environmental challenges and a technology that must itself be made environmentally sustainable

Speakers

– Mattie Yeta
– LIU Hao

Arguments

AI solutions should address precision agriculture, renewable energy identification, and climate action through scenario modeling

The AI Green Index provides a comprehensive measurement system with five pillars and 18 indicators to make AI environmentally sustainable

Topics

Development | Sustainable development

Key takeaways

The digital economy exists but lacks inclusivity, with 80% of companies worldwide lacking web pages and significant disparities in AI adoption across countries and industries

A global digital skills shortage threatens to leave 85 million jobs unfilled by 2030, requiring urgent action to prevent deepening digital divides

The Global Digital Compact provides an action-oriented framework with inclusive digital economy as its central objective, moving beyond principles to concrete implementation

AI solutions are most effective when emerging from comprehensive digital economy ecosystems that include digital public infrastructure, policy frameworks, and strategic investments

Successful AI implementation requires addressing multiple barriers simultaneously: skills gaps, infrastructure deficits, data accessibility, and affordability challenges

Real-world AI applications demonstrate significant impact across sectors including humanitarian response, environmental monitoring, skills development, and industrial applications

Building an inclusive digital economy requires collaboration between public and private sectors, with different approaches for various sectors like health, agriculture, and manufacturing

Resolutions and action items

Launch of the Global Initiative for Digital Inclusion call for solutions, focusing on five thematic areas: skills empowerment, enabling policy, innovation acceleration, and sustainable digital supply chains

UNIDO to continue co-leading Objective 2 of the Global Digital Compact on inclusive digital economy

Microsoft Elevate commitment to donate $4 billion over five years in AI and cloud technology to schools and nonprofits

Microsoft Elevate Academy to help 20 million people learn AI skills over the next two years

Selected solutions from the global call will be promoted during UNGA 80 and UNIDO’s general conference

UNIDO to continue building scalable AI platforms through collaboration with 120+ partners across 40 countries

Development of online tools for the AI Green Index system with pilot users

Unresolved issues

How to effectively measure the digital economy, with current global estimates varying widely between 10-40% of global GDP

Standardization of AI green performance regulations and global-level AI governance frameworks

Scaling successful pilot projects to comprehensive industrial AI ecosystems

Addressing the concentration trend toward large organizations in the digital economy

Ensuring AI solutions remain context-aware and accessible to micro, small, and medium enterprises

Balancing AI’s potential benefits with its environmental impact and resource consumption

Suggested compromises

Adopting a building block approach that prioritizes foundational digital infrastructure before pursuing advanced AI solutions

Implementing human-in-the-loop systems for AI applications to ensure accuracy and local relevance

Focusing on organic ecosystem development rather than attempting to directly compete with major AI players

Combining public and private sector leadership based on sector-specific needs and capabilities

Balancing AI advancement with environmental sustainability through comprehensive green AI measurement systems

Perhaps most alarming is that our global digital skills shortage threatens to leave 85 million jobs unfilled by 2030. Without deliberate targeted action, the digital divide will not just persist, it will deepen, creating a world where the benefits of AI are concentrated among the very few, while the many are left further behind.

Speaker

Ciyong Zou (UNIDO Deputy Director General)

Reason

This comment reframes the digital divide from a static problem to a dynamic, worsening crisis with specific quantifiable consequences. It introduces urgency by highlighting that inaction will lead to exponential inequality rather than maintaining the status quo.

Impact

This stark warning set the tone for the entire discussion, establishing the urgency that permeated all subsequent presentations. It shifted the conversation from theoretical benefits of AI to concrete risks of exclusion, making every solution presented feel like a necessary intervention rather than an optional enhancement.

If you look at global estimates, anywhere between 10 to 20%, some people say that in a short while, this could be up to 40% of the global GDP. But how do we count this? What do we leave out? Is it only ICT spend? It’s something else.

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill (UN Special Envoy on Technology)

Reason

This comment reveals a fundamental measurement problem – we’re trying to build an inclusive digital economy without even knowing how to properly measure what constitutes the digital economy. It challenges the assumption that we have clear metrics for success.

Impact

This observation introduced a meta-level complexity to the discussion, suggesting that the challenge isn’t just about creating solutions but about defining what success looks like. It added intellectual depth by questioning the foundational assumptions underlying policy discussions.

If we ask the questions: why are the US and China so successful in deploying AI solutions? It’s because there is a broad base of the digital economy. So those seeds are falling on fertile land… countries need to take a strategic approach to building the digital economy rather than a blind race to match OpenAI, DeepSeek.

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill

Reason

This ecosystem thinking challenges the common approach of trying to leapfrog directly to advanced AI without building foundational digital infrastructure. It introduces the concept of ‘fertile ground’ as a prerequisite for AI success.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the discussion from individual AI solutions to systemic thinking about digital ecosystems. It influenced how subsequent speakers framed their solutions – many began emphasizing foundational elements like skills, infrastructure, and community building rather than just technological features.

We found that the people who had positive job outcomes, the only thing they had to do, they did not have to win the competition, but if they entered five competitions, they had five use cases that they have worked on and that they joined a team… They were able to get job outcomes.

Speaker

Celina Lee (CEO of Zindi)

Reason

This insight challenges the traditional merit-based competition model by showing that participation and collaboration matter more than winning. It reveals that skill-building through practice and networking creates economic opportunities regardless of being ‘the best.’

Impact

This finding provided concrete evidence for inclusive approaches to AI skill development, validating the ecosystem approach Gill had outlined. It shifted the conversation toward understanding how to create meaningful participation opportunities rather than just identifying top talent.

How do we reduce the space between data, information and insights and life-saving action.

Speaker

Sasha Rubel (AWS)

Reason

This comment distills the entire AI-for-development challenge into a single, powerful question about the gap between having information and being able to act on it. It reframes AI not as a data processing tool but as a bridge to actionable intervention.

Impact

This framing influenced how Doug Smith presented the Myanmar earthquake response, emphasizing speed and actionability rather than just analytical capability. It shifted the focus from AI as a analytical tool to AI as an enabler of rapid, effective response.

70% of skills used in most jobs will change by 2030. 30% since last fall. We can see that AI hiring has grown 30% faster than overall hiring.

Speaker

Jean-François Saint-Pierre (Microsoft)

Reason

These statistics reveal the unprecedented pace of change in the job market, suggesting that traditional education and training models are fundamentally inadequate for the current rate of transformation. The acceleration since ‘last fall’ shows how rapidly this is evolving.

Impact

These concrete numbers reinforced Zou’s earlier warning about job displacement but added nuance about the speed of change. It validated the urgency of all the skill-building solutions presented and emphasized why traditional approaches to workforce development are insufficient.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing three critical frameworks: (1) urgency – the digital divide is actively worsening and will create massive job displacement, (2) systemic thinking – successful AI deployment requires ecosystem development rather than isolated solutions, and (3) actionability – the value of AI lies not in its analytical capabilities but in its ability to enable rapid, effective action. The comments created a progression from problem identification (skills shortage, measurement challenges) to strategic thinking (ecosystem approach) to practical validation (participation over competition, speed to action). This intellectual scaffolding transformed what could have been a series of disconnected solution presentations into a coherent narrative about building inclusive digital economies through foundational infrastructure, community-based learning, and action-oriented AI deployment.

How do we measure and define the digital economy more precisely?

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill

Explanation

Current global estimates vary widely (10-20% of GDP, potentially up to 40%), and there’s uncertainty about what should be counted – whether it’s only ICT spend or includes other elements. Better measurement is needed for policy and investment decisions.

How can we ensure AI solutions emerge organically from digital economy ecosystems rather than as isolated implementations?

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill

Explanation

Understanding why US and China are successful in AI deployment due to their broad digital economy base is crucial for developing countries to build strategic foundations rather than trying to match specific AI companies directly.

What are the optimal graduation pathways for countries to move to higher levels of digital economy maturity?

Speaker

Amandeep Singh Gill

Explanation

Different maturity levels require different approaches and investments. Research is needed on how countries can systematically progress through these levels.

How can we make AI affordable, adaptable and actionable for micro, small and medium enterprises globally?

Speaker

Ciyong Zou

Explanation

With 80% of companies worldwide lacking web pages and varying AI uptake, there’s a critical need to understand how to scale AI solutions to smaller enterprises that form the backbone of many economies.

What are the most effective ways to address the global digital skills shortage that threatens to leave 85 million jobs unfilled by 2030?

Speaker

Ciyong Zou

Explanation

This represents a massive challenge that could deepen the digital divide if not addressed through targeted, scalable solutions.

How can we optimize the weighting system for the AI Green Index and develop comprehensive online tools?

Speaker

Liu Hao

Explanation

The AI Green Index is still in development and needs refinement of its measurement methodology and user-friendly tools for broader adoption.

What are the best practices for scaling successful local AI solutions to global applications?

Speaker

Multiple speakers (implied from various solution presentations)

Explanation

Several presenters showed successful local implementations but the challenge remains how to adapt and scale these solutions across different contexts and regions.

How can we reduce the gap between data, information, insights and life-saving action in humanitarian contexts?

Speaker

Sasha Rubel

Explanation

This was identified as a key opportunity for AI applications, particularly in crisis response situations where speed and accuracy of information processing can save lives.

What regulatory frameworks are needed for green AI performance measurement globally?

Speaker

Liu Hao

Explanation

Current regulations for AI environmental impact are lacking globally, with only Europe having some AI regulations, leaving other regions without adequate frameworks.

Summary

This Leaders’ Talk focused on ICT applications to unlock the full potential of digital transformation, examining how technology can drive socioeconomic progress across healthcare, education, and climate sectors. The discussion was moderated by Meni Anastasiadou from the International Chamber of Commerce and featured six expert panelists representing various organizations and regions.

Maria Bolshakova from the Regional Commonwealth of Communications outlined preparations for WSIS Plus 20, emphasizing the importance of implementing existing agreements rather than creating new documents and highlighting the need for responsible state behavior in ICT use. Graham Brookie from the Atlantic Council stressed that the multi-stakeholder model remains essential for realizing digital transformation goals, noting that global internet connectivity has improved dramatically since 2003, with unconnected populations dropping from 5.7 billion to 2.6 billion people.

Tatyana Kanzaveli, CEO of Human Health Network, argued that AI and emerging technologies risk deepening inequalities unless leaders shift from tech-first to problem-first thinking, co-design solutions with underserved communities, and incentivize impact over profit. Professor Himanshu Rai shared concrete examples from IIM Indore’s work addressing rural challenges in India, including training 300,000 teachers through WhatsApp videos and increasing rural artisan incomes by 60% through digital marketplace access.

Bocar Ba from Samina Council emphasized that connectivity is a right, not a reward, advocating for the Universal Broadband Financing Framework and stressing that infrastructure must be paired with governance based on transparency and accountability. Moira de Roche from IFIP highlighted the Stockholm Declaration’s focus on inclusive sustainable development, emphasizing lifelong learning and collaborative global action to avoid duplication of efforts. The discussion concluded with a call for strategic co-creation among all stakeholders to ensure technology serves as a true equalizer for global development.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS Plus 20 Preparations and Multi-stakeholder Governance**: Discussion of how regional organizations like the Regional Commonwealth of Communications are preparing for the World Summit on the Information Society Plus 20 review, emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and coordinated implementation of existing agreements rather than creating new documents.

– **AI and Digital Technologies as Equalizers vs. Dividers**: Examination of how emerging technologies, particularly generative AI, can either reduce or deepen global inequities in healthcare, education, and employment, with emphasis on problem-first thinking, co-designing with communities, and incentivizing impact over profit.

– **ICT Applications in Education and Rural Development**: Exploration of how information and communication technologies can address real-world problems, particularly in underserved communities, through examples like training rural teachers via WhatsApp videos and empowering rural artisans through digital marketplaces.

– **Digital Connectivity as a Human Right**: Discussion of the 2.6 billion people still offline globally, framing connectivity not as a privilege but as a fundamental right, and the need for infrastructure development paired with enabling policy environments and governance frameworks.

– **Collaborative Frameworks for Sustainable Development**: Emphasis on the need for strategic co-creation among governments, international organizations, civil society, and businesses to avoid duplication and competition, with focus on shared goals, complementary roles, and long-term engagement.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how ICT applications can unlock the full potential of digital transformation to drive socioeconomic progress across various sectors including healthcare, education, trade, and climate action. The session was part of the WSIS Plus 20 high-level event, seeking to identify strategies for leveraging technology as a catalyst for inclusive development while addressing digital divides and ensuring equitable access to digital opportunities.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently professional, collaborative, and solution-oriented tone throughout. Speakers demonstrated urgency about addressing digital inequities while remaining optimistic about technology’s potential as an equalizer. The tone was forward-looking and action-focused, with participants sharing concrete examples and calling for bold leadership and coordinated efforts. There was a sense of shared responsibility and collective commitment to ensuring digital transformation serves all populations, not just the privileged few.

Speakers

– **Introduction**: Role/Title: Not specified, Area of expertise: Event facilitation/introduction

– **Meni Anastasiadou**: Role/Title: Digital Policy Manager at the International Chamber of Commerce, high-level track facilitator, Area of expertise: Digital policy, event moderation

– **Maria Bolshakova**: Role/Title: Deputy Director General at the Regional Commonwealth of Communications, Area of expertise: Telecommunications, digital policy, international coordination

– **Graham Brookie**: Role/Title: Vice Director Senior Advisor at the Atlantic Council Technology Programs, Area of expertise: Technology policy, geopolitics, internet governance

– **Tatyana Kanzaveli**: Role/Title: CEO of the Human Health Network, Area of expertise: AI systems, healthcare technology, digital equity

– **Himanshu Rai**: Role/Title: Professor, Director of IIM Indore, Area of expertise: Higher education, rural development, educational technology

– **Bocar Ba**: Role/Title: CEO and Board Member of Samina Council, Area of expertise: Digital connectivity, broadband policy, digital transformation

– **Moira de Roche**: Role/Title: Chair of IFIP, Area of expertise: Technology development, international collaboration, sustainable development

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Leaders’ Talk: ICT Applications to Unlock the Full Potential of Digital Transformation

## Executive Summary

This Leaders’ Talk, moderated by Meni Anastasiadou from the International Chamber of Commerce, brought together five distinguished experts to examine how information and communication technologies can drive socioeconomic progress. The discussion, held as part of the WSIS Plus 20 high-level event, featured Maria Bolshakova from the Regional Commonwealth in the field of communications, Graham Brookie from the Atlantic Council, Tatyana Kanzaveli from the Human Health Network, Professor Himanshu Rai from IIM Indore, Bocar Ba from Samina Council, and Moira de Roche, Chair of IFIP.

The session focused on practical applications of ICT for development, with speakers sharing concrete examples of successful initiatives and emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches to digital transformation.

## Opening Context and Framework

Meni Anastasiadou established the session’s framework by positioning ICT applications as critical tools for unlocking digital transformation’s full potential. She emphasized that the discussion would examine how technology can serve as a powerful lever for shared progress across the globe, highlighting the importance of the multi-stakeholder model in reducing global digital divides while maintaining internet openness and security.

## WSIS Plus 20 Preparations and Regional Perspectives

Maria Bolshakova, Deputy Director General at the Regional Commonwealth in the field of communications, outlined her organization’s preparations for WSIS Plus 20. The RCC serves Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Mongolia, and has developed a comprehensive declaration for the event. Notably, this declaration was opened to parties beyond the CIS region, with over 30 parties joining worldwide.

Bolshakova emphasized that the RCC advocates for implementation of existing agreements rather than creating new documents, stating that “the multi-stakeholder approach provides the foundation for an inclusive, safe, and secure digital space.” She highlighted the need for responsible state behavior in ICT use as a basis for global peace and security, and identified the need for increased coordination between New York and Geneva on digital global processes.

## Multi-Stakeholder Governance and Global Connectivity

Graham Brookie from the Atlantic Council’s Technology Programs reinforced the importance of multi-stakeholder governance, arguing that this model remains essential for maintaining a free, open, secure, and interoperable internet. He provided compelling statistics demonstrating the system’s effectiveness: in 2003, 5.7 billion out of 6.4 billion people were not connected to the internet, while today it’s 2.6 billion out of 8.1 billion people.

Brookie emphasized that the multi-stakeholder system must continue to adapt to rapid technological developments in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and the commercial space sector, while addressing increasing geopolitical competition.

## AI Development and Equity Concerns

Tatyana Kanzaveli, CEO of the Human Health Network, challenged current approaches to AI development, arguing that “most current investments in AI are not solving the problem of the majority. They’re scaling convenience for the privileged, not access for underserved.” She advocated for a shift from tech-first to problem-first thinking, emphasizing that AI development must address real needs in healthcare and education.

Kanzaveli provided vivid examples of needed applications: “We don’t need another AI to write responses to our emails faster. We need systems that can reach a mother in a rural village and help her to detect cancer earlier.” She stressed the importance of co-design with communities to avoid building bias into future systems and called for governments to incentivize impact over profit through aligned funding and policy.

## Educational Innovation and Practical Solutions

Professor Himanshu Rai, Director of IIM Indore, shared concrete examples of how educational institutions can leverage ICT for development impact. His institution conducted a survey of 39,000 educators and created 7-minute WhatsApp videos that reached 300,000 teachers, demonstrating the power of simple, scalable solutions.

Rai described several successful initiatives, including how digital technologies helped increase rural artisan incomes by 60% through improved marketplace access. He also mentioned developing a fake news detection system using a large language model with 65,000 inputs that achieved 95% accuracy.

His philosophy centered on the principle that higher education institutions must focus on solving real-world problems. He advocated for systematic inclusion, stating that “every time we do something as institutions of higher education or as not for profit organizations, we need to ask who’s missing from the room and we need to segregate that data by gender, age, disability, region, and identify the gaps.”

## Connectivity as a Human Right

Bocar Ba, CEO and Board Member of Samina Council, reframed digital exclusion as a human rights issue. He powerfully articulated that “2.6 billion people remain offline. And this is not just a technological gap. It’s a dignity gap. It means future delayed, voice unheard, and hope suspended.”

Ba advocated for treating connectivity as a right rather than a reward, referencing the UN Broadband Commission and the Universal Broadband Financing Framework. He emphasized that infrastructure alone is insufficient, stressing that connectivity must be paired with trust-building measures and responsible governance. Ba argued that enabling policy environments with regulatory certainty and harmonized governance are essential for digital transformation.

## Collaborative Frameworks for Sustainable Development

Moira de Roche, Chair of IFIP, concluded the discussion by referencing the Stockholm Declaration, which was written with the Swedish Computer Society in March and focuses on inclusive sustainable development. She advocated for quality education for all with emphasis on digital skills at all life stages, promoting a lifelong learning approach.

De Roche’s key contribution was her reconceptualization of collaboration, arguing that “true collaboration isn’t just about sitting at the table. It’s about designing the table together.” She called for moving from fragmented efforts to collective transformation, emphasizing the need for strategic co-creation among governments, international organizations, civil society, and businesses.

## Key Themes and Shared Priorities

Throughout the discussion, several themes emerged consistently across speakers. The multi-stakeholder approach received strong support from all participants, with speakers viewing it as essential for effective digital governance and development. There was also broad agreement that technology must address real-world problems and serve underserved communities, whether through AI development, educational initiatives, or connectivity programs.

Speakers emphasized the importance of enabling policy environments that facilitate rather than hinder digital transformation, and several highlighted the value of simple, practical solutions that can achieve significant scale and impact.

## Practical Outcomes and Next Steps

The session generated concrete outcomes, including Maria Bolshakova’s formal request that the RCC declaration be included in the WSIS Plus 20 outcome document to be submitted to the UN. The session’s insights were scheduled to be incorporated into the overall summary produced by the WSIS Plus 20 high-level event chair, with a comprehensive high-level track sessions summary planned for Friday at 3 p.m.

## Conclusion

The Leaders’ Talk demonstrated practical approaches to leveraging ICT for inclusive development across healthcare, education, and connectivity. The speakers provided concrete examples of successful initiatives while emphasizing the continued importance of multi-stakeholder governance and community-centered design. As Professor Rai concluded, “the future must belong to all of us,” reflecting the session’s shared commitment to ensuring digital transformation serves all populations rather than deepening existing inequalities.

The discussion highlighted both the progress made in global connectivity and the significant challenges that remain, particularly in serving the 2.6 billion people who remain offline. The path forward requires continued collaboration among all stakeholders to implement existing frameworks while adapting to emerging technological and social challenges.

Introduction: Now, we would like to welcome you to our next Leaders’ Talks, ICT application to unlock the full potential of digital. I would like to invite Ms. Meni Anastasiadou, our high-level track facilitator, to join us here on stage.

Meni Anastasiadou: Okay, I think this is on. Well, hello, everyone, my name is Meni Anastasiadou, I’m the Digital Policy Manager at the International Chamber of Commerce, and I have the pleasure to moderate the seventh Leaders’ Talk today on ICT application to unlock the full potential of digital. So, we have an incredible panel with us today, so we will be just giving some introductions and invite our speakers to join me on stage. We have Ms. Maria Bolshikova, the Deputy Director General at the Regional Commonwealth of Communications, Mr. Graham Berkey, the Vice Director Senior Advisor at the Atlantic Council Technology Programs, Ms. Tatyana Kanzaveli, CEO of the Human Health Network, Prof. Himanshu Rai, the Director of IIM Indore, Mr. Boko Ra, the CEO and Board Member of Samina Council, and Ms. Moira de Vachelle, the Chair of IFIP. So, I would like to welcome you to the stage, and then we can begin our conversations. We will be looking into the intersection of technology and socioeconomic progress across various topics, ranging from healthcare to education and climate, as well as the role of the multi-stakeholder governance model, supporting ICTs for development. So, thank you to the speakers for joining me on stage. So, perhaps if we can start with our first question, just to remind everyone that our time today is a little bit limited, so if you could kindly keep your interventions to three minutes, and then we can ensure that everyone has the chance to come in and speak. I see all of our speakers have joined us on stage, so perhaps, Maria, if I can go to you. How are preparations for the WSIS-Bosch training being carried out at the Commonwealth of the United States or the regional level as well, and what is the role of the RCC in these preparations?

Maria Bolshakova: Many thanks for giving me the floor. Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, very happy to be here, and maybe a bit nervous to be the first one in a row, since we have a pretty wide issue to discuss throughout our very short panel. But to start with, for sure, I think like in every of the regions, it’s a very important issue now, this year, on how we prepared for WSIS Plus 20. And to start, and to briefly give a picture for you, the regional Commonwealth in the field of communications, its interstate coordinating body in the field of telecom and informatization, and we serve as a platform for discussing priority tasks and making common decisions at the national levels, in international arena, and we also officially bring the common position of Commonwealth of Independent States towards the ITU and UPU. We not only unite digital ministries of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, as well as Mongolia, we also provide a very good and fruitful platform for cooperation among telecom operators, representatives of research organizations, institutions, and other different parties concerned on the international issues related to telecom. So, in November, we started, you know, like basic preparations toward the WSIS, and which resulted in the RCC declaration on WSIS Plus 20. Generally, the declaration provides the assessment of the efforts done, set out by each of the WSIS action lines shown in Geneva action plan, and also it assumes the key provision of Tunis agenda, which are not settled yet, and also we’ve tried to provide some directions on our further activities on the matter. Very generally, the declaration sells its reiterated commitment to something we agreed upon at both phases of the WSIS. It also kind of advocates against the practice of adopting new and new pretty similar documents, and calls for focusing on implementation of already agreed documents, noting that there is a great necessity to increase the level of coordination of efforts between New York and Geneva on the issues related to the digital global processes. What also we believe is really important, it’s also one of the key elements of our declaration, is that the states should be very responsible in their behavior, you know, like in the use of ICTs as far as we believe that it’s the basis for peace and security on the global level, and also understand on that matter that the multi-stakeholder approach is also the basis and the foundation for inclusive, safe, and secure digital space. And I should say that the document was agreed upon by the digital ministers, as I mentioned before, and then it was opened for all the parties concerned, and we’re happy to say that there are more than 30 parties joined, not from the CIS region, but also all over the world, and I should say that it’s still open to be joined. And to conclude this, I should say that I think it would be done for the moderator, we would like to kindly request the chair of the WSIS plus 20 high-level event to include our declaration in the outcome document of the WSIS plus 20 high-level event that would be, we believe, submitted to UNJ this year. So many thanks, Madam Moderator, for giving me the floor.

Meni Anastasiadou: Thank you so much for your very useful input, particularly on the importance of, you know, making use of what we already have, and the importance of coordination when we’re talking about the WSIS plus 20 review. So then, with that, perhaps, Graham, if I can turn to you. So how has the multi-stakeholder model enabled the really unlocking the full, let’s say, potential of digital transformation? We’d love to hear from you, your thoughts on this.

Graham Brookie: Yeah, thank you. I think it’s important to take a step back, because we get so far into the granularities of our processes that drive real progress, but when you look at the history of this, in 2003, we came together as WSIS and declared our action lines here in Geneva. And then in 2005, because we hadn’t figured out some of the granularities on internet governance, we came back and we made some more action items. And 20 years on, even with the rapid rate of technological change, those action lines remain vague enough to be flexible, but also vague enough to be relevant today, even with all of that change that’s happened since then. This may be obvious, but with the rate of technological change fastening or increasing, it remains wildly essential for WSIS to continue to exist as a primary mechanism for how we understand the technology and the implications of technology in the development and SDGs in particular. So, as an example for a metric of that, in 2003, one in three people around the world were not connected to the internet. At that point, the population was 6.4 billion people. There were 5.7 billion people that were not connected or realizing the opportunity of all these ICT applications. Fast forward to today, that number is down. There are still enormous amounts of progress that need to be made, but that number is down to 2.6 billion people with a global population of 8.1 billion people. So that’s one in three. And that is a remarkable achievement of, number one, innovation, and number two, We are all in a capacity building. We’re providing policy engagement to realize these goals. And the main mechanism by which we do that is through this multi-stakeholder system. Harnessing all of the opportunity for ICT applications is not possible without this. Yes, very unwieldy, sometimes very frustrating set of processes. But it’s not possible to achieve these great results without that. And in this moment, because I sit at a think tank, we analyze the geopolitics of this. And we’re seeing increased geopolitical competition, increased interdependence, especially in the ICT realm, ranging from the hardware and critical resources needed to underpin this ecosystem to the platform level itself. And we’re seeing this rate of rapid technological change increase. In the next few years, we’re going to see wild developments in AI, wild developments in quantum computing, wild developments in the commercial space sector. And if we do not, well, and I should say the industry is for energy and critical resources that underpin all three of those rates of technological change. And if we don’t harness the multi-stakeholder system to meet that moment, then things like the digital divide or the opportunity landscape that is provided by that innovation won’t fully be realized. And so we’re fully committed to this multi-stakeholder system. It’s the only mechanism by which we can keep a free, open, secure, interoperable Internet. And we’re looking forward to doing the work.

Meni Anastasiadou: Excellent contribution. And it’s precisely the numbers speak for themselves. The multi-stakeholder model is the vehicle to reach the ICTs for development vision. So if I can move to our next speaker on my right, Ms. Tatiana Canzavelli. So could I please ask you, in a world of increasingly shaped, which is increasingly shaped by AI and digital tools, how can we ensure that investments in emerging technologies like generative AI actually reduce and not deepen global inequities in health care, education and employment? And what bold steps must leaders take today to make tech a true equalizer?

Tatyana Kanzaveli: Thank you for your question. We are at the inflection point. Technology, especially generative AI, has huge potential to be a great equalizer or the ultimate divider. And the choice is ours. I’ve spent my career building AI systems. AI is not new, by the way. And across health care, government and underserved communities. And here’s the brutal truth. Most current investments in AI are not solving the problem of the majority. They’re scaling convenience for the privileged, not access for underserved. If we want AI to reduce global inequities, we must do three things. Number one, shift from tech-first to problem-first thinking. We don’t need another AI to write responses to our emails faster. We need systems that can reach a mother in a rural village and help her to detect cancer earlier. We need a tool that will enable a child in a war-torn zone to get education. Number two, we need to co-design with the communities we claim to serve. Inclusivity isn’t a panel topic. It’s a product requirement. If we’re not building with diverse voices at the table, we’re putting bias into the future. Number three, incentivize impact, not just profit. Governments and multilaterals must align funding and policy around outcomes that prioritize health equity, climate resilience, and workforce inclusion. The future isn’t about AI replacing humans. It’s about AI amplifying the right ones. And that means investing in bold, inclusive systems designed not just to scale, but to heal, uplift, and connect. Let’s stop admiring the problem. Let’s build the future we actually want. Thank you.

Meni Anastasiadou: Thank you very much. I particularly like your point on the importance of co-designing solutions that are relevant to local communities. So, thank you very much for your contribution. So, I will turn to my left again, over to Professor Himanshu Rai. So, how does ICT contribute to higher education and how can it be used to create social impact?

Himanshu Rai: So, thank you for the question. You know, I’ll foreground it in a little bit of a fact about what is the mission of education institutions, particularly higher education. In the 20th century and early 21st century, the mission statement, if you look at the universities and the best universities across the world, they talked about creating and disseminating knowledge to create some kind of an acumen. But then the first decade of the 21st century was a decade of reckoning. We first had the Enron scam in 2001, and then we had the U.S. subprime crisis. And suddenly we realized that there was a focus on flawed leadership, greed, and inequity. And thereafter, the institutions of higher education and the universities across the world have actually changed their mission statement. And one of the big changes that has happened, and I’ll talk about it in general, is that now we are talking about creating, curating, practicing and disseminating knowledge to solve real world problems. And I think that is where the role of educational institutions, particularly higher education, has changed. I’ll give you a quick example. We at IIM Indore identified five wicked problems. I’m going to focus only on one, and that were rural challenges. Why rural challenges? Nine hundred million people in India live in rural areas. That’s more than the population of the United States and Europe combined. And the kind of challenges that they face are completely different from the kind of challenges people in urban areas face. So one, for example, educators in the villagers, they are untrained. So what we did was we actually did a research survey of thirty nine thousand educators. And then based on our survey, we identified as to what do they need training on? I’m talking about basic primary school teachers. And subsequently, what we did was we created seven minute WhatsApp videos. And through them, we reached three hundred thousand school teachers who subsequently got empowered. So what we are talking about is very low tech, high impact initiative that actually worked. The second one that I’ll talk about is rural artisans. Much to our horror, we realized that 70 percent of the rural artisans in most parts of India earned less than a thousand dollars per year. And the reason was that there was information asymmetry between what they were producing and between the middlemen who were actually selling it at a much higher price. So therefore, what we did was we democratized the entire information. We worked with them on a concept called one district, one product. We helped them in getting access to the e-marketplace. And through that, we made sure that they had all the information that the middlemen had and they reached directly. And within six months of this initiative, we managed to raise their income by 60 percent. The third one was about fake news, which impacted rural areas much more than the urban areas. And again, we actually created an LLM using sixty five thousand inputs. And we have made a model which can predict fake news with almost 95 percent accuracy. Now, all of this is actually making sure that we are taking care of the people who are otherwise unaddressed. So I’ll end with, you know, every time we do something as institutions of higher education or as, you know, not for profit organizations, we need to ask who’s missing from the room and we need to segregate that data. data by gender, age, disability, region, and identify the gaps. Because one of the statements that I would like to close with is that the future must belong to all of us. Otherwise, it will serve none of us. Thank you.

Meni Anastasiadou: Many thanks, Professor. And again, the numbers are really impressive, your efforts and how you really reached 100,000 teachers with your low-technology but high-impact efforts. So, I will stay on my left, and I will go to our next speaker, Mr. Bocar Ba, who is the CEO Board Member of City Council. So, if I could ask you, how can digital technologies lift trade, extend healthcare, create decent work, and improve the state of the planet? So, please take the floor.

Bocar Ba: Distinguished Delegates and esteemed partners and colleagues, we are meeting today not merely to exchange reflection, but to affirm a shared obligation, which is to ensure the digital transformation of our world becomes the great equalizer of our time, not its great divide. And today, we stand before a simple question that is elegantly simple, yet undeniably powerful in its implication. How can digital technology thoughtfully deployed and inclusively designed unlock the full spectrum of human potential, hence advancing prosperity, dignity, and sustainability for all? And the answer begins with a connection. The digital handshake that enables inclusion, opportunity, and resilience. And as we speak, 2.6 billion people remain offline. And this is not just a technological gap. It’s a dignity gap. It means future delayed, voice unheard, and hope suspended. At Samina Council, we have a clear conviction. Connectivity is a right, not a reward. And in championing this across our region, we have built coalitions that blend capital with conscience and strategy with service. And with the UN Broadband Commission, we have co-architected the Universal Broadband Financing Framework, which is a blueprint for collective accountability, where the benefits of the digital economy are matched by shared responsibility to build and sustain its infrastructure. Yet, I’ll be unequivocal. Infrastructure alone is not enough. We must pair fiber with foresight, bandwidth with trust. And as artificial intelligence, as we know, and digital ecosystem expand, governance must lead with moral clarity, and we must insist on transparency, fairness, accountability. Not as optional virtues, but as nonnegotiable principles. The AI for good has lightened this conversation, and it’s on us as leaders to act with purpose and precision. And to fully unlock your question, digital potential, we must channel its forces toward inclusion. We must leverage digital solutions to deliver healthcare to the remotest villages, education beyond the confines of classroom, financial access to the previously unbanked, and green innovation, of course, to planet sustainability. But no mistake, there is no ambition can be materialized without enabling policies environment. And the investment needed to scale digital transformation requires regulatory certainty, harmonized governance, and for the private sector incentive that can reward risk and innovation. So, let us make policy a bridge to opportunity, not an impediment to progress. Colleagues, I will end with that. The true promise and your question of ICT is not in the technology itself, but in the lives it transforms when every woman, man, and child is equipped, not just to connect, but to compete, contribute, and even to lead. Let us remember today that digital transformation is not a destination, it’s a shared responsibility among us, a collective project that demands courage from the government, foresight from the industry, and clear engagement from every single development partner. If we succeed, the next time we will gather here, we will no longer speak of gaps, we will speak of generation uplifted, system reimagined, and why not nations in power. So, I will end with a reflection. Let us not just connect the world, let us elevate it, and let’s not just focus on how fast do we connect the network, but how do we improve the life of people. Thank you.

Meni Anastasiadou: Thank you so much. And I really support what you said earlier about the importance of enabling policy environments. It’s really the baseline to enable ICTs for development. And thank you for pointing that out as well. So, I will go to our last speaker, Ms. Ms. Meni Anastasiadou. So, last but not least, of course. So, what is in your role as chair of IFIP? What’s your role in supporting how emerging and innovative technologies can accelerate the development of economies and societies? How does the scientific and professional community research develop the use of technology as a catalyst? And how can all stakeholders collaborate meaningfully to improve socioeconomic conditions, working together rather than in competition or repeating the work which is already being done? So, over to you. Thank you. IFIP aligns with the

Moira de Roche: exploration of technology as a driver for socioeconomic progress across various sectors. True collaboration isn’t just about sitting at the table. It’s about designing the table together. When each sector respects the other’s strengths and commits to shared outcomes, we move from fragmented efforts to collective transformation. In March of this year, IFIP and the Swedish Computer Society wrote the Stockholm Declaration, which is all about inclusive sustainable development. The initiatives outlined resonate directly with areas of socioeconomic transformation. I want to say one of the earlier speakers was talking about rich and poor, and that’s absolutely correct. But really, it’s all about using technology to promote our economies. We need quality education for all, as we say in SDG 4, with an emphasis on digital skills at all life stages to reduce skills gap and giving more opportunity for employability. Lifelong learning is what it’s all about. We need collaborative global action with international collaboration to shape policies that are equitable and forward looking. Institutions like IFIP aim to go beyond the SDGs, advocating a post 2030 vision built on inclusive, secure and sustainable tech ecosystems. The big picture, as outlined in the Stockholm Declaration, reinforces how strategically implemented technologies, coupled with inclusive policy making and skill building, can unlock more resilient economies, broader social participation and environmental innovation. It’s a vivid reminder that tech isn’t just about tools and wires. It’s a powerful lever for shared progress across the globe. To collaborate meaningfully and avoiding duplication of competition, governments, international organizations, civil society and businesses must shift from siloed efforts to strategic co-creation. We must establish shared goals, vision, we must find complementary roles, we must build collaborative infrastructure where we build trust and a long-term engagement, and we must learn from what works. Study successful models like the First Movers Coalition, UND’s umbrella program in Saudi Arabia, the Coalition for Reform by the World Bank, and we must promote peer learning and cross-sector membership to scale proven approaches. Thank you.

Meni Anastasiadou: Many thanks, and I know that we are a little bit beyond our time here, but I would just like to take a moment to thank the speakers for their incredible points, and we’ll make sure to reflect those in the summary of the session that will then feed into the actual summary that will be produced by the chair of the WSIS Plus 20 high-level event. Please make sure to stick around until Friday. There will be a summary of the high-level event, and we’ll be back on Friday with a summary of the high-level track sessions at 3 p.m. So, once more, a huge thanks to all of our speakers and grateful for the audience for their participation. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach is fundamental for digital governance and development

Speakers

– Maria Bolshakova
– Graham Brookie
– Meni Anastasiadou
– Moira de Roche

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach provides foundation for inclusive, safe, and secure digital space

Multi-stakeholder model is essential for maintaining free, open, secure, interoperable Internet amid geopolitical competition

Multi-stakeholder model is the vehicle to reach ICTs for development vision

True collaboration requires designing solutions together with shared outcomes rather than fragmented efforts

Summary

All speakers strongly endorsed the multi-stakeholder model as the essential mechanism for effective digital governance, development, and maintaining an open internet, emphasizing collaboration over fragmented efforts

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Technology must address real-world problems and serve underserved communities

Speakers

– Tatyana Kanzaveli
– Himanshu Rai
– Bocar Ba
– Moira de Roche

Arguments

AI development must shift from tech-first to problem-first thinking, addressing real needs like rural healthcare and education

Higher education institutions must focus on solving real-world problems rather than just creating knowledge

Digital solutions must deliver healthcare to remote villages, education beyond classrooms, and financial access to unbanked populations

Technology should be used as a powerful lever for shared progress across the globe

Summary

Speakers agreed that technology development should prioritize solving real-world problems, particularly for underserved communities, rather than focusing on technological capabilities alone

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Policy frameworks must enable rather than hinder digital transformation

Speakers

– Bocar Ba
– Moira de Roche
– Meni Anastasiadou

Arguments

Enabling policy environments with regulatory certainty and harmonized governance are essential for digital transformation

Policy must serve as bridge to opportunity rather than impediment to progress

International collaboration needed to shape equitable and forward-looking policies

Enabling policy environments are baseline requirement for ICTs for development

Summary

There was strong consensus that policy frameworks should facilitate digital transformation by providing regulatory certainty and serving as enablers rather than barriers to progress

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Community involvement and inclusive design are essential for effective technology implementation

Speakers

– Tatyana Kanzaveli
– Meni Anastasiadou
– Moira de Roche

Arguments

Co-design with communities is essential to avoid building bias into future systems

Co-designing solutions with local communities is crucial for relevant technology implementation

True collaboration requires designing solutions together with shared outcomes rather than fragmented efforts

Summary

Speakers emphasized that meaningful community involvement and co-design approaches are crucial for creating relevant, unbiased, and effective technology solutions

Topics

Development | Human rights | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers referenced the same statistic of 2.6 billion people remaining offline, but framed it differently – Brookie as progress made, Ba as a dignity gap requiring urgent attention

Speakers

– Graham Brookie
– Bocar Ba

Arguments

Internet connectivity improved from 5.7 billion unconnected in 2003 to 2.6 billion today, demonstrating multi-stakeholder system effectiveness

2.6 billion people remaining offline represents a dignity gap with delayed futures and unheard voices

Topics

Development | Human rights | Infrastructure

Both speakers advocated for simple, practical technology solutions that address real needs of underserved populations rather than sophisticated solutions for the privileged

Speakers

– Tatyana Kanzaveli
– Himanshu Rai

Arguments

Current AI investments scale convenience for privileged rather than solving problems for the majority

Low-tech, high-impact solutions like WhatsApp videos can reach 300,000 teachers effectively

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasized the importance of building on existing frameworks and international collaboration rather than creating entirely new structures

Speakers

– Maria Bolshakova
– Moira de Roche

Arguments

RCC developed declaration on WSIS Plus 20 advocating for implementation of existing agreements rather than creating new documents

International collaboration needed to shape equitable and forward-looking policies

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected consensus

Simple technology solutions can be more effective than sophisticated ones

Speakers

– Tatyana Kanzaveli
– Himanshu Rai
– Meni Anastasiadou

Arguments

AI development must shift from tech-first to problem-first thinking, addressing real needs like rural healthcare and education

Low-tech, high-impact solutions like WhatsApp videos can reach 300,000 teachers effectively

Low-technology, high-impact initiatives demonstrate effective resource utilization in development

Explanation

Unexpectedly, speakers from both AI/tech industry and academic backgrounds agreed that simple, low-tech solutions often outperform sophisticated technology in addressing development challenges, challenging the assumption that more advanced technology is always better

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Focus on implementation over innovation in policy frameworks

Speakers

– Maria Bolshakova
– Bocar Ba
– Moira de Roche

Arguments

RCC developed declaration on WSIS Plus 20 advocating for implementation of existing agreements rather than creating new documents

Policy must serve as bridge to opportunity rather than impediment to progress

True collaboration requires designing solutions together with shared outcomes rather than fragmented efforts

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus across different regional and organizational perspectives that the focus should be on implementing existing frameworks rather than creating new ones, suggesting maturity in the digital governance discourse

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkably high consensus across key areas: the centrality of multi-stakeholder governance, the need for technology to serve underserved communities, the importance of enabling policy environments, and the value of community-centered design approaches

Consensus level

Very high consensus with complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. This strong alignment suggests the digital development community has reached maturity in understanding fundamental principles, which bodes well for coordinated action on WSIS Plus 20 and future digital governance initiatives. The consensus spans across different sectors (government, academia, private sector, civil society) and regions, indicating broad-based agreement on core principles for digital transformation.

Different viewpoints

Approach to WSIS Plus 20 – Implementation vs. Innovation

Speakers

– Maria Bolshakova
– Graham Brookie

Arguments

RCC developed declaration on WSIS Plus 20 advocating for implementation of existing agreements rather than creating new documents

Multi-stakeholder model is essential for maintaining free, open, secure, interoperable Internet amid geopolitical competition

Summary

Maria Bolshakova advocates against creating new documents and focuses on implementing existing WSIS agreements, while Graham Brookie emphasizes the need for the multi-stakeholder system to adapt to rapid technological changes including AI, quantum computing, and commercial space developments

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Technology complexity for development solutions

Speakers

– Tatyana Kanzaveli
– Himanshu Rai

Arguments

AI development must shift from tech-first to problem-first thinking, addressing real needs like rural healthcare and education

Low-tech, high-impact solutions like WhatsApp videos can reach 300,000 teachers effectively

Summary

Kanzaveli focuses on leveraging advanced AI technologies for problem-solving in underserved communities, while Rai demonstrates that simple, low-tech solutions can be more effective for reaching large populations

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Role of existing frameworks versus adaptation to new challenges

Speakers

– Maria Bolshakova
– Graham Brookie

Arguments

RCC developed declaration on WSIS Plus 20 advocating for implementation of existing agreements rather than creating new documents

Multi-stakeholder model is essential for maintaining free, open, secure, interoperable Internet amid geopolitical competition

Explanation

Unexpected because both speakers support multi-stakeholder governance, but Bolshakova advocates for focusing on existing WSIS frameworks while Brookie emphasizes the need to adapt these frameworks to address emerging technological and geopolitical challenges

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on core principles (multi-stakeholder governance, serving underserved communities, technology for development) with disagreements primarily on implementation approaches and priorities

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Speakers largely agreed on fundamental goals but differed on methods – whether to focus on implementing existing frameworks or adapting to new challenges, and whether to use high-tech AI solutions or low-tech approaches for development. These disagreements reflect healthy debate on practical implementation rather than fundamental philosophical differences, suggesting strong potential for collaborative solutions.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers referenced the same statistic of 2.6 billion people remaining offline, but framed it differently – Brookie as progress made, Ba as a dignity gap requiring urgent attention

Speakers

– Graham Brookie
– Bocar Ba

Arguments

Internet connectivity improved from 5.7 billion unconnected in 2003 to 2.6 billion today, demonstrating multi-stakeholder system effectiveness

2.6 billion people remaining offline represents a dignity gap with delayed futures and unheard voices

Topics

Development | Human rights | Infrastructure

Both speakers advocated for simple, practical technology solutions that address real needs of underserved populations rather than sophisticated solutions for the privileged

Speakers

– Tatyana Kanzaveli
– Himanshu Rai

Arguments

Current AI investments scale convenience for privileged rather than solving problems for the majority

Low-tech, high-impact solutions like WhatsApp videos can reach 300,000 teachers effectively

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasized the importance of building on existing frameworks and international collaboration rather than creating entirely new structures

Speakers

– Maria Bolshakova
– Moira de Roche

Arguments

RCC developed declaration on WSIS Plus 20 advocating for implementation of existing agreements rather than creating new documents

International collaboration needed to shape equitable and forward-looking policies

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Key takeaways

The multi-stakeholder model has proven effective in reducing global digital divide from 5.7 billion unconnected people in 2003 to 2.6 billion today, demonstrating its value as the primary mechanism for ICT development

Digital transformation must prioritize problem-first thinking over tech-first approaches, focusing on solving real-world challenges for underserved communities rather than scaling convenience for the privileged

Connectivity should be treated as a fundamental right requiring collective accountability, with infrastructure development paired with trust-building and responsible governance

AI and emerging technologies can either serve as great equalizers or ultimate dividers depending on how they are designed and implemented, with co-design involving affected communities being essential

Educational institutions must shift from knowledge creation to solving real-world problems, with low-tech, high-impact solutions often proving more effective than complex technologies

Enabling policy environments with regulatory certainty and harmonized governance are fundamental prerequisites for successful digital transformation

True collaboration requires designing solutions together with shared outcomes rather than working in silos or duplicating efforts across sectors

Resolutions and action items

RCC requested the chair of WSIS Plus 20 high-level event to include their declaration in the outcome document to be submitted to the UN

Session summary to be reflected in the overall summary produced by the WSIS Plus 20 high-level event chair

High-level track sessions summary scheduled for Friday at 3 p.m.

Participants encouraged to study successful collaborative models like the First Movers Coalition and World Bank’s Coalition for Reform

Emphasis on implementing existing WSIS agreements rather than creating new similar documents

Unresolved issues

Specific mechanisms for ensuring AI development prioritizes equity over profit remain undefined

Concrete steps for achieving the Universal Broadband Financing Framework implementation were not detailed

How to effectively coordinate efforts between New York and Geneva on digital global processes lacks clear resolution

Specific funding mechanisms and policy alignment strategies for incentivizing impact over profit in AI development need further elaboration

Methods for scaling successful low-tech, high-impact solutions globally were not fully addressed

Detailed frameworks for meaningful multi-stakeholder collaboration beyond general principles remain to be developed

Suggested compromises

Focus on implementing existing WSIS agreements rather than adopting new similar documents to avoid duplication while maintaining progress

Balance between technological innovation and responsible governance by pairing infrastructure development with trust-building measures

Shift from competitive to collaborative approaches across sectors while respecting each sector’s unique strengths and contributions

Combine private sector innovation incentives with public sector accountability measures to ensure both profit and impact considerations

Integrate both high-tech solutions and low-tech, high-impact approaches based on local context and community needs

Most current investments in AI are not solving the problem of the majority. They’re scaling convenience for the privileged, not access for underserved.

Speaker

Tatyana Kanzaveli

Reason

This comment cuts through typical AI optimism to expose a fundamental inequality in how emerging technologies are being developed and deployed. It reframes the entire AI discussion from technical capabilities to social justice and equity concerns.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from abstract discussions about AI potential to concrete critiques of current investment patterns. It established a more critical tone that influenced subsequent speakers to focus more explicitly on inclusion and equity rather than just technological advancement.

We don’t need another AI to write responses to our emails faster. We need systems that can reach a mother in a rural village and help her to detect cancer earlier. We need a tool that will enable a child in a war-torn zone to get education.

Speaker

Tatyana Kanzaveli

Reason

This provides vivid, human-centered examples that contrast sharply with typical tech industry priorities. It challenges the audience to think about technology’s purpose and who it should serve first.

Impact

This comment provided concrete imagery that grounded the abstract discussion in real human needs. It influenced the subsequent speakers to provide more specific examples of technology serving underserved populations, as seen in Professor Rai’s rural education examples.

Every time we do something as institutions of higher education or as not for profit organizations, we need to ask who’s missing from the room and we need to segregate that data by gender, age, disability, region, and identify the gaps.

Speaker

Himanshu Rai

Reason

This offers a practical methodology for ensuring inclusion that goes beyond rhetoric. It provides actionable steps for identifying and addressing digital divides systematically.

Impact

This comment introduced a concrete framework for inclusive development that other speakers could reference. It elevated the discussion from identifying problems to providing systematic solutions for ensuring no one is left behind.

2.6 billion people remain offline. And this is not just a technological gap. It’s a dignity gap. It means future delayed, voice unheard, and hope suspended.

Speaker

Bocar Ba

Reason

This reframes digital exclusion from a technical problem to a human rights and dignity issue. The poetic language (‘future delayed, voice unheard, hope suspended’) transforms statistics into emotional reality.

Impact

This comment elevated the moral urgency of the discussion and provided a human rights framework that influenced the final speaker to emphasize collaborative action and shared responsibility rather than just technical solutions.

True collaboration isn’t just about sitting at the table. It’s about designing the table together.

Speaker

Moira de Roche

Reason

This metaphor challenges conventional notions of stakeholder participation by suggesting that meaningful collaboration requires shared power in setting agendas and frameworks, not just participation in predetermined discussions.

Impact

As the final substantive comment, this provided a synthesis that tied together earlier themes about inclusion and co-design, offering a philosophical framework for how the multi-stakeholder model should evolve beyond traditional consultation approaches.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shifted the discussion from a technical focus on digital transformation to a human-centered examination of equity, inclusion, and power dynamics in technology development. Kanzaveli’s critique of AI investment priorities established a critical tone that influenced subsequent speakers to provide concrete examples of serving underserved populations rather than celebrating technological achievements. The progression from identifying problems (digital divides) to providing frameworks (Rai’s systematic inclusion methodology) to reframing the moral imperative (Ba’s dignity gap concept) created a coherent narrative arc. The final comment about ‘designing the table together’ provided a synthesis that elevated the entire discussion to questions of power, participation, and genuine collaboration. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a routine technology policy discussion into a more profound examination of how digital transformation can serve social justice and human dignity.

How to increase the level of coordination of efforts between New York and Geneva on issues related to digital global processes

Speaker

Maria Bolshakova

Explanation

This was identified as a key necessity in the RCC declaration, suggesting current coordination mechanisms are insufficient for effective global digital governance

How to ensure the RCC declaration is included in the outcome document of the WSIS Plus 20 high-level event

Speaker

Maria Bolshakova

Explanation

This was presented as a formal request to the chair, indicating a need for procedural clarity on how regional declarations can be incorporated into global outcomes

How to effectively harness the multi-stakeholder system to meet rapid technological developments in AI, quantum computing, and commercial space sector

Speaker

Graham Brookie

Explanation

With accelerating technological change, there’s uncertainty about whether current multi-stakeholder mechanisms can adequately address emerging challenges

How to shift AI investments from scaling convenience for the privileged to providing access for underserved communities

Speaker

Tatyana Kanzaveli

Explanation

Current AI investment patterns are not addressing global inequities, requiring research into new funding and development models

How to systematically identify and address gaps by segregating data by gender, age, disability, and region in development initiatives

Speaker

Himanshu Rai

Explanation

This methodology was suggested as essential for ensuring inclusive development but requires further research on implementation frameworks

How to create regulatory certainty and harmonized governance frameworks that reward innovation while ensuring accountability

Speaker

Bocar Ba

Explanation

The need for enabling policy environments was emphasized, but specific mechanisms for achieving regulatory harmony across jurisdictions require further exploration

How to move from fragmented efforts to collective transformation in multi-stakeholder collaboration

Speaker

Moira de Roche

Explanation

While successful models were mentioned, there’s a need for deeper research into scalable frameworks for avoiding duplication and competition among stakeholders

How to develop a post-2030 vision for inclusive, secure and sustainable tech ecosystems

Speaker

Moira de Roche

Explanation

IFIP’s Stockholm Declaration advocates going beyond current SDGs, requiring research into what frameworks and goals should guide technology development after 2030

Summary

This UNESCO session focused on integrating ethics into the development and deployment of emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, neurotechnology, and quantum computing. Dafna Feinholz, UNESCO’s acting director of Research, Ethics and Inclusion, emphasized that ethics should be foundational rather than an afterthought in technological development, highlighting UNESCO’s role in promoting innovation while protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The panelists shared diverse perspectives on implementing ethical frameworks across different sectors. Mira Wolf-Bauwens, a philosopher working in tech ethics, argued that while individual developers often have good intentions, institutional and economic pressures frequently override ethical considerations. She stressed the need to find ways to create a return on investment for ethical practices and advocated for anticipatory governance that considers potential negative outcomes early in development processes.

Ryota Kanai, a neuroscientist and entrepreneur, discussed the challenges of maintaining public trust in emerging technologies while balancing commercial pressures. He emphasized the importance of scientific validation and transparent communication about technological capabilities, particularly in neurotechnology where personal data extraction raises significant privacy concerns.

Chaichana Mitrpant from Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency shared practical implementation experiences, describing how Thailand adapted UNESCO’s AI ethics recommendations to local contexts through multi-stakeholder engagement, working with regulators, and creating governance frameworks for different sectors. The discussion revealed that effective ethics implementation requires collaboration across government, private sector, and civil society, with governance models that can adapt to rapid technological change while maintaining core ethical principles. The panelists agreed that ethics differs from regulation by being broader, more anticipatory, and focused on motivations rather than just compliance requirements.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Ethics as foundational rather than an afterthought**: The panelists emphasized that ethics should be embedded from the very beginning of technology development, not added later. UNESCO’s approach advocates for ethics throughout the entire lifecycle of technology development, with all stakeholders involved at each stage.

– **Challenges of implementing ethics in commercial environments**: Multiple speakers highlighted the tension between good intentions at the individual level and institutional/economic pressures. The discussion revealed how profit motives and corporate dynamics can override ethical principles, even when developers have genuine ethical motivations.

– **Governance frameworks and keeping pace with rapid technological development**: The conversation explored how governance can remain relevant amid fast-evolving technologies like AI, neurotechnology, and quantum computing. Speakers discussed the need for anticipatory approaches and whether universal ethical principles can be applied across different technologies with specific customizations.

– **Multi-stakeholder collaboration and localized implementation**: The Thailand case study demonstrated the importance of working with various stakeholders (regulators, private sector, SMEs, citizens) and adapting international ethical frameworks to local contexts while maintaining core principles – described as “localized, customized, but not compromised.”

– **Distinction between ethics and regulation**: The panel addressed fundamental differences between ethical principles and legal frameworks, with ethics being broader, more agile, and focused on motivations and ideals, while laws provide specific, enforceable implementations of ethical concepts.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine how ethics can be effectively integrated into emerging and converging technologies (AI, neurotechnology, quantum computing) from the development stage onward. The session sought to advocate for embedding ethics throughout the technology lifecycle and explore practical implementation strategies, drawing from UNESCO’s experience with non-binding ethical frameworks and real-world case studies.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with speakers building upon each other’s insights rather than debating opposing viewpoints. The atmosphere was academic yet practical, with participants sharing genuine challenges and uncertainties they face in their work. There was a sense of shared commitment to ethical technology development, though speakers were candid about the difficulties of implementation, particularly regarding economic pressures and institutional constraints. The tone remained consistently engaged and solution-oriented, with speakers offering concrete examples and practical approaches to complex ethical challenges.

Speakers

– **Dafna Feinholz** – Acting Director of the Division of Research, Ethics and Inclusion at UNESCO; in charge of ethics of science and technology and bioethics at UNESCO for 16 years; led the process of elaboration of the recommendation of ethics of artificial intelligence

– **Mira Wolf-Bauwens** – Head of Initiatives Development, Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator in Jesta and Open Quantum Institute; philosopher by background who works on applying philosophy in tech; worked on digital ethics, quantum and blockchain; formerly worked at IBM Quantum

– **Ryota Kanai** – Founder and CEO of Araya; neuroscience background, former university teacher and researcher; leads a large research grant program; independent expert who participated in drafting the recommendation of ethics of neurotechnology

– **Chaichana Mitrpant** – Executive Director of Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ECTA) in Thailand under the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society

– **Audience** – Various attendees who asked questions during the session

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the speakers names list provided.

# UNESCO Session on Ethics in Emerging Technologies: Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This UNESCO session brought together leading experts to examine the critical challenge of integrating ethics into the development and deployment of emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, neurotechnology, and quantum computing. The 9 AM session, held in a full but intimate room, featured three distinguished panellists alongside moderator Dafna Feinholz, UNESCO’s Acting Director of Research, Ethics and Inclusion, who has been in charge of ethics of science and technology and bioethics at UNESCO for 16 years.

The panellists included Mira Wolf-Bauwens, a philosopher who founded a responsible quantum computing research group at IBM and conducted extensive interviews with quantum computing colleagues; Ryota Kanai, a neuroscience professor who started a company 10 years ago focusing on AI and neurotechnology, specifically brain computer interface technology to help people with disabilities; and Chaichana Mitrpant, who oversees digital policy implementation in Thailand and leads the country’s AI Governance Center and international policy advisory panel. Their diverse perspectives created a rich dialogue spanning international policy development, academic research, commercial pressures, and national implementation challenges.

## Foundational Context: UNESCO’s Mission and Approach

Feinholz opened the session by emphasizing UNESCO’s foundational mission, established after World War II to promote peace through collaboration in education, science, and culture. She explained that UNESCO’s core approach to emerging technologies centers on promoting innovation while protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, with ethics at the center of science and technology development throughout the entire lifecycle.

A key principle underlying UNESCO’s approach is the recognition that “everybody will have a very different view and appreciation on what the benefit or harm can be,” making inclusive discussion essential. This philosophy shaped the session’s multi-stakeholder perspective and emphasis on diverse viewpoints in technology governance.

## Individual Perspectives: From Research to Implementation

### The Academic-Commercial Bridge: Neurotechnology Challenges

Kanai provided insights from his dual experience as both scientist and entrepreneur, describing the specific pressures that emerge when transitioning from academic research to commercial development. “I’m running a company and then I get investment. So investors push us to make money. I think that’s how our current economic system works,” he explained. This pressure leads some companies to market neurotechnology products that lack proper scientific validation, potentially undermining public trust in the entire field.

He emphasized that trust in science and technology is crucial for public acceptance and requires transparent communication about expert intentions and scientific validation. The challenge becomes particularly acute in neurotechnology, where the extent of information that can be extracted from neural signals remains an active research question with significant implications for privacy and regulatory frameworks.

### Quantum Computing and the Ethics-Industry Disconnect

Wolf-Bauwens shared findings from her year-long interview project with quantum computing colleagues, revealing a troubling pattern where individual ethical intentions become systematically undermined by institutional dynamics. She described how the same researchers who privately express strong ethical concerns about their work publicly compromise those values when faced with corporate pressures, funding requirements, and profit demands.

Her research revealed what she termed a “slaughtered or butchered conception of ethics in industry,” where companies use the term “ethics” to mean compliance with existing law rather than genuine ethical reflection. This distinction between authentic ethics and compliance-based pseudo-ethics helps explain why many corporate ethics initiatives fail to address real ethical concerns.

### Thailand’s Implementation Experience

Mitrpant presented Thailand’s practical experience implementing UNESCO’s AI ethics recommendations, demonstrating how international ethical principles can be adapted to local contexts through what he described as “localized, customized, but not compromised” implementation. Thailand recently hosted UNESCO’s third Global Forum on AI Ethics with over 1000 participants, reflecting the country’s commitment to international collaboration on these issues.

The Thai experience revealed the complexity of multi-stakeholder engagement, requiring different approaches for different groups: enforcement mechanisms for government agencies, collaborative relationships with regulators for private sector companies, educational programs for small and medium enterprises, and awareness campaigns for citizens. This differentiated approach acknowledges that various stakeholders have different capacities, motivations, and constraints.

## Key Themes and Consensus Areas

### Ethics as Foundation, Not Afterthought

All participants agreed that ethics must be embedded from the very beginning of technology development rather than treated as an afterthought. This requires all stakeholders to be involved at each stage, from initial research through deployment and ongoing monitoring. Wolf-Bauwens emphasized that foundational ethical considerations are essential for creating truly beneficial technologies, while acknowledging that good individual intentions frequently become compromised when institutional and economic pressures emerge.

### Anticipatory Governance and Future Scenarios

The panellists demonstrated agreement on the need for anticipatory governance that can keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies. Wolf-Bauwens argued that effective governance must imagine potential consequences 2-10 years ahead rather than merely reacting to current developments. She noted that while she initially thought governance structures themselves needed fundamental change, she now advocates for working within existing democratic and inclusive structures, despite their inherent time-lagging nature.

Kanai complemented this perspective by emphasizing the need for a portfolio of different future scenarios to prepare for various technological developments, including considering even remote possibilities that experts might dismiss as unrealistic, noting that the pace of technological change often exceeds expert predictions.

## Audience Questions and Key Discussions

### Risk Management Approaches

An audience question about risk management prompted discussion of distributed approaches that avoid placing excessive burdens on individual stakeholders. Mitrpant explained that rather than requiring each developer to conduct comprehensive risk assessments, Thailand explores models where global-level threat observation can cascade down to developers and users, reducing individual assessment burdens while maintaining effective oversight.

The panellists agreed that risk management should begin early in development processes, similar to ethics committees for human research, and that new technologies often create “gray zones” that require careful navigation.

### The Distinction Between Ethics and Regulation

A significant audience question focused on clarifying the relationship between ethical principles and legal frameworks. The panellists reached consensus that ethics is broader and more fundamental than regulation, though they emphasized different aspects of this distinction.

Wolf-Bauwens argued that ethics is more agile than law and addresses motivations and positive actions rather than just prohibitions. Kanai highlighted the practical dilemma that actions can be legally permissible while remaining ethically problematic, emphasizing that laws represent specific implementations of ethical ideals but cannot capture all important aspects of ethics.

Feinholz added that ethics provides ongoing reflection for dilemmas that laws cannot always address, particularly in rapidly evolving technological contexts. Mitrpant offered a useful analogy, comparing ethics to vaccination in that it raises the bar for all stakeholders, while laws establish minimum agreed practices.

### Technology-Specific vs. Cross-Cutting Frameworks

The discussion explored whether separate ethical frameworks are needed for each emerging technology or whether cross-cutting principles can be effectively adapted. Wolf-Bauwens advocated for establishing cross-cutting ethical principles with technology-specific customizations rather than reinventing frameworks for each new technology, arguing this would be more efficient and create more coherent governance across the technology landscape.

The participants agreed that while core ethical principles such as justice, inclusivity, and accessibility remain constant across technologies, their specific applications require careful adaptation to address the unique characteristics and risks of different technological domains.

## Implementation Challenges and Practical Solutions

### Economic Pressures and Institutional Dynamics

Perhaps the most significant challenge identified was the systematic way in which individual ethical intentions become undermined by institutional dynamics. This pattern extends beyond individual companies to entire sectors and even national policy implementation. Mitrpant shared Thailand’s experience of drafting AI legislation, where those experiencing fraud and defects supported regulation while developers opposed it due to cost concerns.

Wolf-Bauwens raised the critical unresolved question of how to put a return on investment on ethics, making ethical practices economically viable in profit-driven environments. This challenge requires developing business models that demonstrate how ethical principles can coexist with profitability.

### Flexible Frameworks and Multi-Stakeholder Engagement

Feinholz highlighted the effectiveness of non-binding normative instruments, such as UNESCO’s AI ethics recommendations, which allow adaptation by different member states and stakeholders while maintaining core principles. This approach provides flexibility for local implementation while preserving fundamental ethical commitments.

The session emphasized that effective ethics implementation requires collaboration across government, private sector, and civil society. This multi-stakeholder approach is essential but complex, requiring diverse expertise and perspectives while managing different interests and priorities.

## Conclusion and Future Directions

The session demonstrated both the complexity of integrating ethics into emerging technology development and the sophisticated understanding that experts from diverse backgrounds bring to these challenges. While significant challenges remain, particularly around making ethics economically viable and maintaining ethical commitments under institutional pressure, the discussion revealed promising approaches to addressing them.

The conversation evolved from abstract principles to practical implementation challenges, ultimately revealing that the central question is not what ethical principles to adopt, but how to create systems that can maintain ethical commitments under economic and institutional pressure. The participants’ shared commitment to foundational ethics, anticipatory governance, and multi-stakeholder engagement provides a foundation for continued progress in this critical area.

Key takeaways include the need for continued development of technology-specific ethical frameworks building on established cross-cutting principles, maintaining multi-stakeholder dialogue platforms to capture signals about technological development directions, and creating networks of experts to share knowledge across different technological domains. The session’s insights suggest that effective technology ethics requires not just good intentions or sound principles, but systematic approaches to addressing the institutional and economic pressures that consistently undermine ethical commitments.

Dafna Feinholz: Okay, good morning, good morning to all. Recording in progress. Thank you very much, be very welcome and thank you very much for coming to this session. We’re happy to see that we have a full room, even if it’s small, but at nine o’clock on ethics, we are very happy that we have you with us. And we are very happy about having the opportunity to have this session because, well, first, let me introduce myself. I’m Dafna Feinholz and I am the acting director of the Division of Research, Ethics and Inclusion at UNESCO. And I’m also in charge of ethics of science and technology and bioethics in UNESCO since 16 years ago. And I was also leading the process of the elaboration of the recommendation of ethics of artificial intelligence. And we’re also now going to have a recommendation on ethics of neurotechnology. So we have been working, I mean, this is one of the mandates of UNESCO, putting ethics at the center of the development of science and technology. The idea of UNESCO, as you know, UNESCO was founded with the aim of promoting peace. It was after the Second World War. And the idea is to have collaboration in the different areas of the work of UNESCO, which is education and culture and natural sciences, social and human sciences, communication, in order to foster peace. So the idea of UNESCO is to promote innovation, to promote research. But most importantly, is that this development should not be at the expense of. protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and that’s the departing point. And the second important departing point of UNESCO is that there needs to be this reflection ahead of what could be, I mean, if we want to develop a technology, what would be the impact of this technology? For whom? And what would be the benefits or the harms? And what kind of society will be building or we’re heading with this technology? And of course, another very important point of UNESCO is like, these questions are very complex and the answers are very complex, so there is no one unique voice that can answer these questions. So the most important part is to have a very inclusive discussion and debate about these responses, because everybody will have a very different view and appreciation on what the benefit or harm can be, depending on their needs, on their expectations, on the way they understand technology, on the kind of values and societies they envision and they want to live in. So that’s why having everyone around the table, and everyone really means everyone in the sense of everybody that is going to be affected by these technologies. And we have also always to think that sometimes people might not wish to be part of these technologies when we also have to take into account that, which is not easy in the case of some of them that are very pervasive, such as AI. But in any case, we do have to take that into account. So all that was behind the recommendation of AI and is always behind every document that we have. UNESCO has lots of documents related to this area on genomics as well, on climate change. And as I said, now, AI and also neurotechnology. So there are lots of important issues about artificial intelligence, as we know, bias, surveillance, erosion of privacy, deepening digital divides. This is also a very important ethical point. Accessibility of these technologies is one of the main ethical issues. Because sometimes ethics is thought about something very philosophical, very abstract, that we don’t know how to really interpret. But it’s very clear. I mean, it’s like, there has to be justice, there has to be no harm, there has to be respect for different understandings of technology, the respect of the good data. Because for technology to be ethical, it needs to be scientifically sound. So this is very concrete. Ethics is very concrete. So just to say that we are also working on quantum technology, we’re also working on exploration and exploitation of space. We are working on mental health of children and adolescents in the digital area, and on synthetic biology. So as you can see, we’re really trying to cover the intersections with AI. And I think one of the lessons that we have learned also is that when we create a normative instrument that is non-binding, it’s also very useful. Sometimes people think that you have to have a convention or a legally binding instrument because otherwise, nobody will comply. But it’s not what the experience that we have is that they are very useful, because they are, first of all, they are always the instruments, these instruments are always built with a high level understanding of the ethical issues of the technologies, not on the technologies themselves, because technologies change very quickly. So that’s why the idea is, what are the ethical issues behind them? So that’s why they continue to be relevant. And they also, this normal soft law kind of also allows to different member states and stakeholders to adapt themselves and to adapt the kind of framework that they need to make sure that these technologies are still governed in a way that protect human rights. So I think with this I will start zooming really in the session. I just wanted to frame a little bit why we put this session together. Now since this is a we are having this meeting of wishes and the reflection of what can happen in 20 years because it’s have been a while time already. So that’s why we thought this session could be very important because we want to try to advocate to include ethics across all the lines of what we see because of the reasons I’m just trying to explain. We want to advocate for ethics as something that it’s embedded from the very beginning when everything is conceived. That is the way we conceive it in the normative instruments that we have. We always speak about ethics through the whole life cycle of the technology and all the stakeholders that are involved in each of the stages. So this is what we want to advocate for and not to make sure that ethics is not an afterthought when it’s most of the time too late but from the very beginning. So what we want is to examine as I said a bit how these non-binding instruments can be very useful and can be paired with implementing tools, implementation tools that we have also developed and can influence as I said national policies, inspire institutional reforms, provide common ethical foundation. And again, to emphasise the need of having ethics in the design already, ethics in the key actions of connectivity, data governance, education, data inclusion, innovation, I mean we have heard so many sessions about data that is missing to be collected, but then what are we going to do with this data? Who is going to collect it? So ownership of data is very important. And of course, the interplay of artificial intelligence with many others as neurotechnology and data systems, etc. So I’m very honoured to have excellent and the highest quality possible of speakers with me, accompanying me. So we have Professor Ryo Takanai. He is the founder and CEO of Araya. Araya, that’s the way. Then we have Mira Wolf-Bowens. She’s Head of Initiatives Development, Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator in Jesta and Open Quantum Institute. And of course, we have Dr Chaya Mitpark, Executive Director of Electronic Transactions Development Agency, ETA in Thailand. So all of them are also very good partners of us. Mira has been one of the experts that we have been consulting because one of our experts bodies have developed a report on ethics of quantum. It’s working currently on ethics of quantum computing. And Mira has been participating a lot. Ryota is one of the independent experts that participated in the drafting of the recommendation of ethics of neurotechnology. And Professor, I don’t know how to pronounce Chai. He has been with all his team. They have been the greatest hosts of the third Global Summit, Global Forum of Artificial Ethics of Artificial Intelligence two weeks ago. We had more than 100 participants and 1000 sorry. 100 is easy. No, 100. But it was not only the amount of people and important representations of different stakeholders, but the quality and the excellent organization. So thank you again. So without further ado, I want to what we will do is we will do our round of three questions. And then we would like to also open the interaction with you at the end. So you can also ask questions to the panelists. And so let me let me start if you can do like five minutes each. So first of all, I would like to ask maybe I start with Mira. But the same question is for everyone. What role should ethics play in shaping the development and deployment of emerging and converging technologies? Because this is the conversion that is that is really at the heart. How how can we make sure that this is not an afterthought? How we can ensure that there are principles like inclusion, accountability, human dignity as part of it? And what have you seen? Because you have a lot of experience. What have you seen that works and does not work? What do you suggest?

Mira Wolf-Bauwens: Thank you. First of all, thank you very much for the kind invitation. It’s always a pleasure. And I say this and I really, really mean it. These kinds of discussions where we can truly speak about ethics are the ones that I like most because I feel most at home. By background, I’m a philosopher who’s ventured into applying philosophy and tech. So I worked on digital ethics since a while before quantum and blockchain. So it’s really, really good to kind of comment on why I’m critical of how ethics is understood in the industry. So I’m always very happy when we’re in fora where we can speak about true ethics and not about the slaughtered or butchered conception of ethics in industry. So that kind of foreshadows a little bit also some of the remarks I’m going to make. So with respect to the role that ethics should play, when you were talking about UNESCO and the role of ethics and all the initiatives you’re having, you said it and I couldn’t agree more, but ethics should be foundational. In a way, to me, it is hard to understand how we could possibly develop anything without having ethics first. And I think it is more that the way that then institutionally ethics is becoming an afterthought. So in terms of the should be, it’s very, very clear. It has to be because in a way, it’s hard. How can we have a motivation without having sort of guiding principles? So if we don’t think kind of consequentialist, but more deontologist, we need guiding principles. That’s ethics. And so we need to find them before we even start. And I would argue that implicitly the tech sector does that by kind of defining what do they want to do, what is kind of the solution they want to provide. And in answering those questions, they’re all ethical. In a way, they’re all normative ethical answers. The question I think then is how do we bring in, in a way, I guess, good ethics or the right principles into these decisions? How do we ensure that it’s not in a way the sort of purely profit driven principles, but as principles that are, since we’re at the AI for good and in the context of the SDGs, but are driven by principles that are for humanity and also that are realizing that doing something for society benefit does not have to be in contrast to economic benefit. And I think that is something. we’ve been saying for a good 10 years, probably even longer, but something we still haven’t figured out how to really convince the private sector that this can be done. And I think we’re lacking actually good models. And we’re hearing of examples of companies that used to have that as their common goal. I think you all know what I’m gesturing at, and are changing at the moment that a lot of dollars are flowing in, flying in. So I think, unfortunately, the answer in principle is very clear. It should be foundational, the question of how do we resist the economic pressures and also the institutional pressures to ensure that good principles remain at the foundation of motivation. That is the challenge. And unfortunately, I think it’s the discussion we need to have. How do we ensure that? But I wanted to also comment on what works in the sense of starting to a process that I started to see how we could instill kind of ethics from the start of the development of a technology. And I know with AI, I personally came in too late. So by the time I came in, AI was already kind of in full flux, and the discussions of ethics had to be after ethics. But with quantum computing, we started this very early. And so I used to work at IBM Quantum, who are one of the leading quantum computing companies. And it doesn’t really matter if you’re not familiar with quantum computing, it doesn’t really matter, novel computing technology. But basically, they’re developing it, and they weren’t thinking about ethics. But IBM tried to say, well, we’re a global citizen, we’re trying to be good. And IBM tries to kind of also say, long standing tech. So in a way, I tried to use that motivation and said, well, okay, if you’re serious about that, and if you’re serious about now doing this truly for society, and you’re telling all of us you’re developing quantum computers for society, well, then embed ethics from the start. And so they allowed me to found a research group on quantum ethics. So I called it responsible quantum computing. And what I did is I thought, okay, the wrongest thing I could do is now come in as the philosopher and tell my colleagues, the physicists who haven’t thought about ethics and who are not trained to think about ethics, to tell them this is what you should do. Because then it’ll be the typical alienation of, oh, these are the ethical principles, they’re not embedded in my thinking, and this is what this philosopher told me, and that wouldn’t work. So instead, what I did is that I did a one-year process of interviewing my colleagues who were working on quantum, and I asked them, what is your motivation? And this goes back to what I said at the beginning, the motivation. And I found that, and it was one-on-one confidential interviews, but I can abstract from this. I found that all of them said they work on quantum computing because they’re seeing that there are challenges in the world that cannot be solved with classical computing. So among the simulation of nature, you can’t do this well with classical computing. And if we could simulate nature, we could get better, potentially better materials for carbon capture or develop drugs much faster. So this was at the heart of their motivation. They’re spending too much time in the labs. They’re spending all their leisure time in the labs. And so they very clearly said, this is why we work in quantum computing. This is why we’re doing this. We see that at the core. And so it was really across the board. Even the business developers would tell me, this is why I’m in this business, why I want to do it. And then it’s interesting that once you get to the more institutional level, and so once the individuals become the groups and the kind of institutional and power dynamics also come into play where suddenly this is a business and you have to sell, suddenly you have to tell your clients that you’re selling a machine that is in underdevelopment and you have to make promises as to what it can do, which it cannot do yet. So basically have to hype. Suddenly the same people that told me, no, we don’t want to overhype this machine. We don’t want to promise something that it cannot do. Suddenly I saw them in conferences with clients. I saw them telling clients, oh yes, you need to buy this machine because it can solve your problems now. So I think what I’m like, just for me, this was really, really insightful kind of acknowledging that as individuals. The sort of good motivations and ethical principles are there, but the kind of trick that happens once power dynamics of who someone is in a team, how much power they have in a team, the pressures of a corporate having to sell, having to make profit, once those come into play, they very clearly fade. And I think so the trick is in a way, how can we instill, it’s been said before a lot, but on the one hand, how can we instill that culture? But for me, the point is really, how can we put an ROI, return on invest, onto ethics? So I’ll stop with that open question on kind of how can we in a world that clearly is so driven by the private industry, how can we put this return on invest on ethics? Yeah, that’s the question that I haven’t figured out.

Dafna Feinholz: Thank you. Thank you very much. I think you really put the light where it has to be, but I don’t want to take more time. Maybe we continue with Ryota because you also have these two halves of academia and private sector.

Ryota Kanai: OK, yeah, so my background is neuroscience. I used to be teaching at the university and doing research on how the brain works. But then I started my company about 10 years ago because I wanted to sort of demonstrate that the kind of research I was doing is actually useful in society. So that’s how I started my company. So my company is focusing on the combination of AI and neurotechnology. So we use AI to decode what people want to say from brain activity. And we also try to sort of help people with disability by creating brain computer interface so that to help them with some sort of physical immobility. things like that. But also in this space, there’s a lot of concerns, which is the kind of general trust in science and technology. So as part of my work, I also lead a large research grant program. And in that program, we encourage researchers to translate their research in neuroscience to real-world applications. But that made the public kind of worried because, you know, laypeople don’t know what’s currently possible. So they were worried that, you know, we may implant electrodes in everyone and then control their thoughts and things like that. So I think there’s a general concern in the public about how technology might be used. And so I think in that sense, it’s very important to communicate that experts have good intention about how we want to apply our knowledge and technologies. But also, especially, I think in general, people have good intention. So there might be good, bad people, but I believe most people are good people. And but I think the tricky thing starts when there’s some sort of conflict. So especially in the commercial setting, there’s a strong demand to make profit. So I’m running a company and then I get investment. So investors push us to make money. I think that’s how our current economic system works. But because of this, as a scientist, I felt some companies are trying to sell neurotechnology products that are not scientifically validated. So that made me really worried because, as I said, I think trusting science and technology is very important. Otherwise, people may not accept new technologies. Maybe partly this kind of thing might be also related to individuals’ personality. But for example, you might see many people who are against vaccination, even if it’s reasonably validated and safety has been tested. But still, I think that kind of concern comes from the lack of trust. Personally, I really want to promote neurotechnology and AI because I think they can be beneficial for many people. But at the same time, I think it’s very important that experts and also international organizations like UNESCO and others lead discussions on ethical implications of neurotechnology. And especially when new technologies emerge, there are some gray zones. I think for most things, we can judge whether certain things are good or bad. But in certain areas, there are new kinds of uncertainties. So for example, data sharing was not even a concept maybe a hundred years ago, but now we know the benefit of sharing data, but at the same time that generate concerns and about privacy and other things. Yeah, and that’s particularly true for neurotechnology in my case, because it’s very personal. And of course, we don’t know how much information we can extract from neural signals, but it seems like, especially in combination with AI, it’s becoming more and more feasible to extract personal information from brain activities. So in that sense, there’s a lot of uncertainties. And then although the field is developing very fast, I think ethics is a kind of very fundamental thing which stays the same over time. So in that sense, like maybe we should sort of discuss the high level ethics first, and then break it down to more practical things. And then that part could be changing faster. So in that sense, yeah. So I think it’s very important to consolidate ethical foundation first.

Dafna Feinholz: Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah, I will not be doing any comments. We just go, I think, for more probably institutional point of view.

Chaichana Mitrpant: Good morning. Good morning. My name is Chai. I’m currently the executive director of ECTA. Electronic Transactions Development Agency, which is an organization under the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society. We really commend UNESCO and UNESCO member states to really adopt the ethics of AI since 2021. I think it’s very important and the process is multi-stakeholder and engage all the parties involved into creating this framework. I think it’s very clear and give out almost instruction of what to do. But we still find difficulties of applying it to our environment because I think we have to really adapt the principle into the context of our own countries. So we are now working very hard to understand how to implement all the recommendations by UNESCO. What is good is the values, the principles and the policy areas specified in the recommendation that would serve as a tool for guiding us to make implementing decision of what we can do within that framework. So based on our belief that this is our guiding tool for Thailand to navigate through AI adoption and maybe regulation creation, we try to really make it happen. So we have a national AI committee as a body that is responsible for developing our national strategy. One pillar of the strategy is the ethics and standards. and laws and regulations. We believe that that’s based for the AI development, adoptions, deployment and use. We decided to study AI laws and regulations more than two years ago. We actually drafted our AI bill two years ago, but there were conflicting opinions of how Thailand should navigate through AI regulations at that time. People facing fraud, defect issues were supporting the law while the developers in Thailand were kind of opposing and asked a lot of questions. Why imposing duties for them? Because we are quite new in Thailand, AI developers and imposing laws and regulation would impose the cost into their activities. So we decided that to wait and see. At that time, EU AI Act was not yet in effect, but we really need a tool to monitor the risk and possibly find something that can control the risk. So we set up AI governance center to monitor the AI risk in Thailand. But at that time we did not have like a complete global understanding of AI risk landscape. So we engaged international experts and created international policy advisory panel by drawing several areas of expertise. For example, legal expertise, business expertise, technical expertise, political science, medical. healthcare. These are just examples of expertise that we try to curate to create our panel. So that serves as our advisor to navigate Thailand through different issues coming up as we adopted AI technologies. I think that works for us. It helps us understand the risk and it helps us create tools to try to control the risk. So we published AI Governance Framework and Generative AI Governance Framework at a later stage as a tool for accomplishing the ethical values specified by the recommendations. So how do we implement that? So we need to really engage different stakeholders with different mechanisms. For government agencies, we have to use enforcement because the cabinet can order government agencies to do things. So we use kind of enforcing by the government. So we proposed the AI governance guideline to the cabinet to be adopted for government agencies. That’s the work that’s still ongoing. But for private sector, that’s a bit more difficult. So we really try to break down our work into several parts. For private sectors that have regulators, we try to work with regulators to understand and adopt the AI recommendations on the ethics that UNESCO published and see how that can be implemented. customized into the context. So, with the strong belief that the recommendation should be localized, customized, but not compromised. So, we really stress on the values and the principles and see what risk is foreseen by the regulator. And then we try to propose, make sure that control the risk at the proportionate level. And that’s still ongoing. So, now our central bank is drafting AI governance guideline for the banks in Thailand. And that is based on our guidelines as well. That’s for private sectors that have regulators. So, we work with regulators. We can never imagine working alone. And I think that would not work if we think that we are responsible for AI development, AI adoption, and so on. And we try to work on that ourselves. We don’t have expertise, especially sectoral expertise in medical services, in energy sector, in banking sector. We don’t know we are not the domain expert. So, we really need to work with the domain expert in defining what are the dos and the don’ts in the particular domains. So, we facilitate the development of these localized into the sector, customized into the sectoral guideline. And that’s for the private sector with regulators. But for SMEs, we don’t have regulators for that. We have to promote them. Right. So, how can we… I’m sorry. I’m sorry. Taking more time. So, for SME, we created tools for the adoption with good governance, we organized workshops for them, and then for the general citizens, we try to educate and make awareness happen within the citizens so that we can raise the bar, because the weakest link for the AI adoption that would cause the collapse of the whole system. Thank you.

Dafna Feinholz: Thank you. Maybe what we can do is do the second round, but I will ask you to really stick to three minutes each. Like this, we can open the floor because we promised to open the floor for questions, and then before we close, I will ask you after the questions to go with a takeaway message, if that is okay. So, I think for the second question, I would like to say, well, thank you very much first for this very important inputs already and insights on the first, but so we have been listening a lot about the challenges of integrating into the policies, how to, the institutional and economical pressures and how to make sure that the right values are in the right place, because there are good intentions. But then, so my question would be how this governance can keep also paced, also with the rapid development of technologies, because this is also something that we have to face. And there are many areas, neurotech, quantum, synthetic biology, and these intersections. So, is there any kind of governance models that you think that can ensure coherence across all these converging domains? Do we really need to have one specific model for each of the new technologies, or is there anything that can… across all of them and then just some specifics. Maybe I will do the same order then.

Mira Wolf-Bauwens: I think the keeping pace is a matter also of being anticipatory. So I think what I’ve seen in particular in the tech sector is an unwillingness to anticipate the negative. And I think that is something that sort of is on all of us and not in the tech sector to put more pressure on anticipating the potential negative outcomes and unintended outcomes. And so to do that, I think that’s a good start because that way also when we put timelines to that, that way we are kind of almost by the timelines by having that. Ideally, if we can put evidence to that even better, that way we have a timeline and that way kind of the governance also sees that it needs to act and that kind of puts kind of, it’s almost by having those insights, you put the top-down pressure then on regulators also to act because otherwise I think what is currently happening is that a lot of these technological developments, they appear so far away and this is why it appears as if governance wasn’t agile enough. But I think it’s more a matter of not having communicated early enough that no, it’s actually not far away and that actually you need to put this on a priority list now. And then there is the structure. So initially I came to this and I thought, yes, we need to change the structures, but now I’m more and well, I think it’s harder to change all the governance structures. So let’s work with what we have in terms and because they are effective, I think what the benefit of these, what is often criticized as being time-lagging structures is that they’re inclusive and that they’re democratic. And so I’ve seen processes as well that are not democratic, that then put out governance principles that are not at all inclusive, that were done by a round of 20 people from sort of different sectors, but that were part of a members club. And so, yeah, I would say rather let’s kind of make sure we communicate the timelines well, the kind of unintended effects, and we put that on the priority list and then we govern for that. And I think regarding the cross-cutting or not, you mentioned, I really liked you mentioned that in Thailand you’re working on a localized customized but not compromised. And I’m wondering whether that slogan can in a way also be adopted for ethics principles. So in a way that we have, I think we need kind of tech ethics principles that are overarching because there’s a lot of commonalities. But then with regard to certain specificities of certain technologies, they need to be localized and customized to use that slogan adopted, but not everything needs to be reinvented. So issues that you mentioned, like justice, inclusivity, and so forth, accessibility, they’re cross-cutting. And then for technologies like quantum computing, there might then have to be a bit more focus on access to knowledge about quantum computing versus access to the extra hardware. The hardware question is not as predominant with AI, for instance. So I think that’s kind of, that would be an approach. And I think having that approach would also preempt us from doing, there’s a lot of work in doing all of these principles all over again. So if we could come to kind of, okay, we agree on this basic set. And you mentioned that as well, that these don’t change, right? And then we can adopt them for the specific technologies. But then also, I think the ethics gets better for the specific technologies because they have a foundation and an overarching model. So, and I think that’s what you’re doing also. You’re having the, at UNESCO, you’re having the ethics principles and the rest in a way, at least that’s chronological. It follows and it uses the insights from the processes as well. I think that’s a way forward. So I’ll stop there.

Dafna Feinholz: Thank you. And apologies for being nasty. I hate that part of being a moderator. I really hate it.

Ryota Kanai: Okay. I tried to be quick. Three minutes. All right. Yeah. About keeping pace. Yeah, I think, as Mira said, anticipation is important. So we cannot keep pace with the speed of development of technology if we just react to what’s happening now. But we need to imagine what might happen in the next two years, five years, 10 years. So I think it’s particularly important to consider also remote possibilities. So a lot of times when you ask experts, actually, they might give you some conservative estimation. For example, maybe 10 years ago, if we talk about the possibility of AGI in AI governance kind of meetings, people didn’t take you seriously. But now it seems like it’s becoming a possibility now. So in that sense, sometimes some possible consequences of new technology may feel like science fiction. But I think it also includes such considerations, but we need to make sure that we have some agreement about where we are now. But I think it’s useful to have a portfolio of different future scenarios. And so I think that way we can be prepared and keep pace with technology. Do you think for the second part, do you think that we will need kind of different ethical scenarios or, I mean, ethical backgrounds or, like Meera said, there is something like cross-cutting and then there are some specificities? Because you know now we had for AI, now for neural networks. technology? Do we have to have one for Symbio and another one for what? Yeah, I think for different scenarios, I think we might have like specific ones, but I think it’s kind of more important to have kind of more combined expertise. So, for example, like, you know, I practice with my colleagues about, you know, kind of futuristic scenarios of, applications, new technology, but often, but they are like new technology experts, and then they don’t have like a projection of how AI might develop at the same time. So, but yeah, so, so we need to think about, you know, future scenarios by combining different technologies, because they all develop fast at the same time. Thank you.

Chaichana Mitrpant: Try to compensate to what I took. Almost three minutes. Well, I would like to build on top of Mia has said is, and anticipatory is quite important. But I would like to maybe enrich some concepts based on that. First, I think we need to stick to the basic values and the principles as our guiding light. And then we need to hear voices. So, platforms that encourage dialogues are important for us to capture signal, what is what AI is going in which direction. So, we have information to adjust and to adopt tools that is necessary. The third one is, we should have knowledge and expertise, because AI is quite deep, and require good understanding to make sensible measures. So network of experts. can be helpful to share knowledge. Fourth is working in a friendly, trustworthy, multi-stakeholder environment. Work with private sector, government organization, the consumers organization, human rights, NGOs. I think we need to work with all these different stakeholders to understand the whole aspect, every aspect of the landscape.

Dafna Feinholz: Thank you very much. So now as promised, which because I think we are already late, but I think we can take at least two questions, one question, or two, can I take two? Yes, please. Can you introduce yourself, please? Thank you. Repeat with the microphone?

Audience: Yeah, yeah. The question was about, do you all call for risk management to be done during the development and the life cycle of the systems, quantum neural AI? Thank you.

Mira Wolf-Bauwens: Yes, but more than that. So risk management is kind of mitigating the unintended consequences, but I think to embed ethics, it’s also to go back then to being anticipatory also of the desired kind of goals we have with that. So on the one hand, it’s this risk management, which is really kind of on the, but it’s also, it’s bringing sort of the positive and the negative into anticipation. So yes, but more. It’s the short answer.

Ryota Kanai: I don’t have a clear answer, but I think in practice, probably we should be able to anticipate potential risk at the early phase of development. So I think that when you start developing a new product or starting a new kind of development, yeah, that may be the point where it’s good to think about potential risks. I think in research, especially in human research, it’s kind of common to have this consideration at the beginning. And sometimes for human experiment, we have ethics committee to assess potential risks and whether it’s ethical to actually carry out that research. So I think that kind of practice could be done in other domains as well.

Chaichana Mitrpant: Only a few words. Risk management assessment are very important, but that should not put too much burdens on some particular stakeholders. So we should try to synergize. For example, at a global level, we can observe threats and vulnerabilities to identify all these emerging threats. And then that can cascade down to structure way to developers or users so that not all the SME and developers have to do the risk assessment themselves.

Dafna Feinholz: Thank you very much. I will take one on this side.

Audience: If I might. Sorry, Philip Marnik. We talked about regulators do guidelines and regulations. And we talked about building ethics into the way people think and the way they do things, which is very different. regulations and laws. What do you feel is the difference between ethics and regulation as proposed from one side to the other side of the panel?

Chaichana Mitrpant: Well, ethics, as Daphna said, it has to be understood at all levels, you know, by everybody. And that’s, I think, provide vaccine to different persons, national persons or even legal persons. That’s raising, I think, the bar. If you are all vaccinated, then we are immune to all different threats. But laws are like something that require people to do vaccination because law, after all the stakeholder process, that’s already agreeable within the country. What should be the minimum practice of the ethical concepts?

Dafna Feinholz: Thank you for the question, by the way. I love it.

Mira Wolf-Bauwens: I can quickly go next. So, for me, there’s different answers to this. But in the tech sector, importantly, the difference between true ethics and the law is that ethics is much wider and that the law often is this kind of, that’s what we discussed, is the one that is sort of lacking behind and that is not capturing a lot. So, for instance, even if you hear, and I mentioned that earlier to you, in a tech sector, when you hear ethics, it is not ethics, it is compliance. And so it’s looking into complying with the existing law. And so, for instance, quantum ethics, that’s why I’d never called it quantum ethics, can’t exist because there’s no regulation around quantum. Or, I mean, it could exist, but then it means you can do whatever you want. And so I think ethics, and we need to kind of uphold an understanding of ethics that is importantly what Daphna also said at the beginning, the soft governance, and that can be more agile in that sense, that is individualized, that I think as individuals we can all relate to, and often is more broader. And I don’t think everything that is ethics needs to be law. And I think that is important that, so for instance, law typically, and this is because I’m not a lawyer, but I also think of law as disallowing us and telling us what not to do, whereas ethics often is also about the motivations and what is allowed to do, and I don’t think we need to put all the motivations into law. So that’s how I differentiate.

Ryota Kanai: Okay, yeah, so this is a very difficult question. So yeah, I think, so I’m sure that there’s a lot of theory about legal systems, but my take is ethics is a very high level thing, and then laws are one specific implementation of that ideal. And so I think in that sense, you know, laws are more practical sort of implementation of ethics. But on the other hand, I also, you know, on one hand, it’s very difficult to capture all the important aspects of ethics, because laws can be really prohibiting all kinds of freedom. So in that sense, maybe laws are not sufficient, because as a company or a private person, I feel like if something is not forbidden by the law, I should be free to do them. But on the other hand, you know, those actions can be unethical so yeah so in that sense there’s some sort of dilemma you know we can never have perfect laws but I think it’s good to have ethical principles.

Dafna Feinholz: And if I may just add to what Mira said and my colleagues, laws indeed will tell us what to do what not to do but the ethics will always be there to reflect and the answers will never be always in the law and so they will always be dilemmas and we will so we won’t have time for the for the wrapping up but so I just want to thank you so so much and can you please say join me in giving a round of applause to the speakers thank you thank you very much

Agreement points

Ethics should be foundational and embedded from the beginning of technology development

Speakers

– Mira Wolf-Bauwens
– Dafna Feinholz

Arguments

Ethics should be foundational and embedded from the beginning, not an afterthought

UNESCO promotes ethics at the center of science and technology development to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms

Summary

Both speakers strongly advocate that ethics must be integrated from the very start of technology development rather than being added as an afterthought. They emphasize that ethical considerations should guide the entire development process.

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Anticipatory governance is essential for keeping pace with rapidly evolving technologies

Speakers

– Mira Wolf-Bauwens
– Ryota Kanai

Arguments

Anticipatory governance is crucial – need to imagine potential consequences 2-10 years ahead rather than just reacting

Portfolio of different future scenarios needed to prepare for various technological developments

Summary

Both speakers agree that governance cannot simply react to technological developments but must anticipate future scenarios and potential consequences years in advance to be effective.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Economic pressures compromise ethical principles in commercial settings

Speakers

– Mira Wolf-Bauwens
– Ryota Kanai

Arguments

Individual researchers have good ethical motivations, but institutional and economic pressures can compromise these principles

Economic pressures and profit demands can override ethical considerations in commercial settings

Summary

Both speakers identify a common pattern where individuals have good ethical intentions, but institutional and economic pressures, particularly the need to generate profit, can override these ethical considerations.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Risk management should occur early in development phases

Speakers

– Mira Wolf-Bauwens
– Ryota Kanai
– Chaichana Mitrpant

Arguments

Risk management should occur throughout the entire lifecycle of technology development

Risk assessment should happen at early phases of development, similar to ethics committees for human research

Risk management should not place excessive burdens on individual stakeholders – global threat observation can cascade down to developers

Summary

All three speakers agree that risk management is crucial and should begin early in the development process, though they offer different perspectives on implementation approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Ethics is broader and more fundamental than legal regulation

Speakers

– Mira Wolf-Bauwens
– Ryota Kanai
– Dafna Feinholz

Arguments

Ethics is broader and more agile than law, addressing motivations and positive actions, not just prohibitions

Laws are specific implementations of ethical ideals but cannot capture all important aspects of ethics

Laws are specific implementations of ethical ideals but cannot capture all important aspects of ethics

Summary

All speakers agree that ethics encompasses broader principles and motivations than what can be captured in legal frameworks, with laws being specific implementations that cannot address all ethical considerations.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for a framework approach where core ethical principles remain consistent but are adapted to specific technologies and local contexts without compromising fundamental values.

Speakers

– Mira Wolf-Bauwens
– Chaichana Mitrpant

Arguments

Cross-cutting ethical principles should be established with technology-specific customizations rather than reinventing everything

Principles should be ‘localized, customized, but not compromised’ when adapting to different contexts

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of building and maintaining public trust through transparent communication and inclusive engagement with diverse stakeholders.

Speakers

– Ryota Kanai
– Chaichana Mitrpant

Arguments

Trust in science and technology is crucial for public acceptance, requiring transparent communication about expert intentions

Multi-stakeholder engagement is essential but complex, requiring diverse expertise and perspectives

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers demonstrate the practical value of non-binding international frameworks that can be adapted to local contexts while maintaining core ethical principles.

Speakers

– Dafna Feinholz
– Chaichana Mitrpant

Arguments

Non-binding normative instruments can be very useful and allow adaptation by different member states and stakeholders

Thailand uses UNESCO’s AI ethics recommendations as a guiding framework, adapting principles to local context while maintaining core values

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Unexpected consensus

The effectiveness of non-binding ethical frameworks over rigid legal requirements

Speakers

– Dafna Feinholz
– Mira Wolf-Bauwens
– Chaichana Mitrpant

Arguments

Non-binding normative instruments can be very useful and allow adaptation by different member states and stakeholders

Ethics is broader and more agile than law, addressing motivations and positive actions, not just prohibitions

Thailand uses UNESCO’s AI ethics recommendations as a guiding framework, adapting principles to local context while maintaining core values

Explanation

It’s unexpected that speakers from both international organizations and national implementation perspectives would so strongly favor flexible, non-binding approaches over traditional regulatory frameworks. This consensus suggests a shift toward more adaptive governance models.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

The challenge of making ethics economically viable in private sector contexts

Speakers

– Mira Wolf-Bauwens
– Ryota Kanai

Arguments

The challenge is putting a return on investment (ROI) on ethics to make it economically viable

Economic pressures and profit demands can override ethical considerations in commercial settings

Explanation

Both speakers, despite coming from different backgrounds (philosophy/policy and neuroscience/business), independently identified the same core challenge of aligning ethical principles with economic incentives, suggesting this is a fundamental systemic issue.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on foundational principles: ethics must be embedded from the beginning of technology development, anticipatory governance is essential, economic pressures pose significant challenges to ethical implementation, and flexible frameworks are more effective than rigid regulations. They also agreed on the need for multi-stakeholder engagement and the importance of building public trust.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than conflicting viewpoints. The speakers approached the same issues from different angles (international policy, academic research, national implementation, and private sector experience) but arrived at remarkably similar conclusions. This strong alignment suggests these principles represent well-established best practices in technology ethics governance, with significant implications for developing more effective and widely adoptable ethical frameworks for emerging technologies.

Different viewpoints

Approach to changing governance structures vs. working within existing systems

Speakers

– Mira Wolf-Bauwens

Arguments

Anticipatory governance is crucial – need to imagine potential consequences 2-10 years ahead rather than just reacting

Summary

Wolf-Bauwens initially thought governance structures needed to be changed but now believes it’s harder to change all governance structures, so advocates working with existing democratic and inclusive structures despite their time-lagging nature. Other speakers don’t explicitly address this structural reform question.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Scope of risk management implementation

Speakers

– Mira Wolf-Bauwens
– Chaichana Mitrpant

Arguments

Risk management should occur throughout the entire lifecycle of technology development

Risk management should not place excessive burdens on individual stakeholders – global threat observation can cascade down to developers

Explanation

While both support risk management, they have different views on implementation burden. Wolf-Bauwens advocates for comprehensive lifecycle risk management, while Mitrpant is concerned about not overburdening individual stakeholders and suggests a more distributed approach. This disagreement is unexpected because both are generally aligned on the importance of risk management.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers show remarkable consensus on fundamental principles but differ on implementation approaches and emphasis

Disagreement level

Low level of fundamental disagreement with moderate differences in implementation strategies. The speakers largely agree on core issues like the importance of ethics being foundational, the challenges of economic pressures, and the need for anticipatory governance. Their differences lie primarily in tactical approaches rather than strategic goals, which suggests a strong foundation for collaborative policy development while allowing for diverse implementation pathways.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for a framework approach where core ethical principles remain consistent but are adapted to specific technologies and local contexts without compromising fundamental values.

Speakers

– Mira Wolf-Bauwens
– Chaichana Mitrpant

Arguments

Cross-cutting ethical principles should be established with technology-specific customizations rather than reinventing everything

Principles should be ‘localized, customized, but not compromised’ when adapting to different contexts

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of building and maintaining public trust through transparent communication and inclusive engagement with diverse stakeholders.

Speakers

– Ryota Kanai
– Chaichana Mitrpant

Arguments

Trust in science and technology is crucial for public acceptance, requiring transparent communication about expert intentions

Multi-stakeholder engagement is essential but complex, requiring diverse expertise and perspectives

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers demonstrate the practical value of non-binding international frameworks that can be adapted to local contexts while maintaining core ethical principles.

Speakers

– Dafna Feinholz
– Chaichana Mitrpant

Arguments

Non-binding normative instruments can be very useful and allow adaptation by different member states and stakeholders

Thailand uses UNESCO’s AI ethics recommendations as a guiding framework, adapting principles to local context while maintaining core values

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Key takeaways

Ethics must be foundational and embedded from the beginning of technology development, not treated as an afterthought

Individual researchers and developers generally have good ethical motivations, but institutional and economic pressures often compromise these principles in practice

Non-binding normative instruments like UNESCO’s AI ethics recommendations can be highly effective when adapted to local contexts while maintaining core values

Anticipatory governance is essential – stakeholders must imagine potential consequences 2-10 years ahead rather than merely reacting to current developments

Cross-cutting ethical principles should be established with technology-specific customizations rather than creating entirely new frameworks for each emerging technology

Multi-stakeholder engagement is crucial but requires different approaches for different groups (enforcement for government, collaboration with regulators for private sector, education for SMEs and citizens)

Trust in science and technology is fundamental for public acceptance and requires transparent communication about expert intentions and scientific validation

Ethics is broader and more agile than regulation – it addresses motivations and positive actions while laws typically focus on prohibitions and minimum standards

The challenge of putting a return on investment (ROI) on ethics remains a critical unresolved issue for making ethical practices economically viable

Resolutions and action items

Continue developing technology-specific ethical frameworks (neurotechnology, quantum computing) building on established cross-cutting principles

Maintain multi-stakeholder dialogue platforms to capture signals about AI development directions

Develop networks of experts to share knowledge across different technological domains

Implement risk assessment processes at early phases of technology development, similar to ethics committees for human research

Create tools and educational programs for SMEs and citizens to promote ethical AI adoption

Work with sectoral regulators to customize ethical guidelines for specific industries while maintaining core principles

Unresolved issues

How to put a return on investment (ROI) on ethics to make it economically viable in profit-driven environments

How to resist economic and institutional pressures that compromise ethical principles when significant funding is involved

How to balance the need for democratic, inclusive governance processes with the speed required to keep pace with rapid technological development

How to effectively anticipate and prepare for remote possibilities and science fiction-like scenarios that experts may dismiss as unrealistic

How to ensure risk management doesn’t place excessive burdens on smaller stakeholders while maintaining effective oversight

How to maintain public trust when some commercial products lack proper scientific validation

How to effectively combine expertise across multiple rapidly developing technologies (AI, neurotechnology, quantum computing, etc.)

Suggested compromises

Adopt the approach of ‘localized, customized, but not compromised’ – adapting ethical principles to specific contexts and technologies while maintaining core values

Use existing democratic governance structures rather than trying to change them entirely, but improve communication of timelines and priorities

Implement a portfolio approach with different future scenarios to prepare for various technological developments rather than trying to predict one specific outcome

Establish global-level threat and vulnerability observation that can cascade down to developers and users, reducing individual assessment burdens

Focus on cross-cutting ethical principles (justice, inclusivity, accessibility) with technology-specific adaptations rather than creating entirely separate frameworks

Balance individual ethical motivations with institutional mechanisms that can withstand economic pressures

So I think what I’m like, just for me, this was really, really insightful kind of acknowledging that as individuals. The sort of good motivations and ethical principles are there, but the kind of trick that happens once power dynamics of who someone is in a team, how much power they have in a team, the pressures of a corporate having to sell, having to make profit, once those come into play, they very clearly fade. And I think so the trick is in a way, how can we instill, it’s been said before a lot, but on the one hand, how can we instill that culture? But for me, the point is really, how can we put an ROI, return on invest, onto ethics?

Speaker

Mira Wolf-Bauwens

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it identifies the core paradox in tech ethics: individual good intentions systematically fail when institutional pressures emerge. Her concrete example from quantum computing research demonstrates how the same people who privately express ethical motivations publicly compromise those values under business pressures. The ROI question reframes ethics from a philosophical ideal to a practical business challenge.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the discussion from theoretical ethics to practical implementation challenges. It introduced the critical tension between individual values and institutional pressures, which became a recurring theme. Both subsequent speakers (Ryota and Chaichana) built upon this insight, with Ryota acknowledging similar pressures in his company and Chaichana addressing how Thailand tries to balance regulatory enforcement with business concerns.

But I think the tricky thing starts when there’s some sort of conflict. So especially in the commercial setting, there’s a strong demand to make profit. So I’m running a company and then I get investment. So investors push us to make money. I think that’s how our current economic system works. But because of this, as a scientist, I felt some companies are trying to sell neurotechnology products that are not scientifically validated.

Speaker

Ryota Kanai

Reason

This comment is particularly powerful because it comes from someone living the dual reality of scientist and entrepreneur. He articulates the specific mechanism by which ethical compromises occur – investor pressure leading to premature or unvalidated product claims. His concern about trust in science adds another layer, showing how individual ethical failures can undermine entire fields.

Impact

This comment validated and deepened Mira’s earlier observation about institutional pressures, but added the crucial dimension of scientific integrity. It shifted the conversation toward the specific challenge of maintaining scientific rigor under commercial pressure, and introduced the concept that ethical failures can erode public trust in entire technological domains.

So based on our belief that this is our guiding tool for Thailand to navigate through AI adoption and maybe regulation creation, we try to really make it happen… We decided to study AI laws and regulations more than two years ago. We actually drafted our AI bill two years ago, but there were conflicting opinions of how Thailand should navigate through AI regulations at that time. People facing fraud, defect issues were supporting the law while the developers in Thailand were kind of opposing and asked a lot of questions.

Speaker

Chaichana Mitrpant

Reason

This comment provides crucial real-world evidence of the implementation challenges discussed theoretically by the other speakers. It shows how even well-intentioned government efforts face the exact stakeholder conflicts that Mira and Ryota identified – those experiencing harms want regulation while developers resist it due to cost concerns.

Impact

This comment grounded the entire discussion in practical governance reality. It demonstrated that the theoretical tensions between ethics and economics play out even at the national policy level, and introduced the concept of ‘localized, customized, but not compromised’ implementation, which became a key framework referenced by other speakers.

So, for me, there’s different answers to this. But in the tech sector, importantly, the difference between true ethics and the law is that ethics is much wider and that the law often is this kind of, that’s what we discussed, is the one that is sort of lacking behind and that is not capturing a lot. So, for instance, even if you hear, and I mentioned that earlier to you, in a tech sector, when you hear ethics, it is not ethics, it is compliance.

Speaker

Mira Wolf-Bauwens

Reason

This comment is intellectually provocative because it challenges the entire premise of how ethics is understood in the technology sector. By distinguishing ‘true ethics’ from compliance-based pseudo-ethics, she exposes how the term ‘ethics’ itself has been co-opted and diluted. This reframing is crucial for understanding why many corporate ‘ethics’ initiatives fail to address real ethical concerns.

Impact

This comment elevated the entire discussion by introducing a meta-level critique of how ethics discourse itself has been corrupted. It provided a framework for understanding why many well-intentioned ethics initiatives fail – they’re actually compliance exercises rather than genuine ethical reflection. This insight influenced the final exchanges about the relationship between ethics and regulation.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a theoretical discussion about ethics principles into a nuanced examination of the systemic barriers to ethical technology development. Mira’s insights about institutional pressure and the corruption of ethics discourse provided the analytical framework, while Ryota’s personal experience as a scientist-entrepreneur validated these observations with concrete examples. Chaichana’s policy implementation experiences demonstrated that these challenges exist at every level, from individual companies to national governments. Together, these comments created a progression from identifying the problem (good intentions undermined by institutional pressures) to understanding its mechanisms (investor demands, regulatory conflicts) to exploring potential solutions (anticipatory governance, multi-stakeholder engagement). The discussion evolved from abstract principles to practical implementation challenges, ultimately revealing that the central question isn’t what ethical principles to adopt, but how to create systems that can maintain ethical commitments under economic and institutional pressure.

How can we put a return on investment (ROI) on ethics in a world driven by private industry?

Speaker

Mira Wolf-Bauwens

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of making ethics economically viable and attractive to profit-driven organizations, which is crucial for embedding ethics from the start of technology development.

How can we resist economic pressures and institutional pressures to ensure that good principles remain at the foundation of motivation?

Speaker

Mira Wolf-Bauwens

Explanation

This explores the systemic challenges that cause individuals with good ethical intentions to compromise when faced with corporate and financial pressures.

How much information can we extract from neural signals, especially in combination with AI?

Speaker

Ryota Kanai